RAT, of course, stands for "[Something that starts with an "R"] [Something that starts with an "A"] Tournament." In your submissions, feel free to suggest something for "R" and "A". The first thing that occurred to me wasn't child friendly, so I rejected it.
Rules:
1. Standard single elimination tournament on SFBOL.
2. Prizes: 1st - $100, 2nd - $50, 3rd -$25 (the losers of the semi-finals will play each other for third).
3. Entry fee - $0 (inaugural event, so I'll just put up the prize money and not take entry fees).
4. Deadline for entry submissions is August 15th.
5. Eligibility - everyone with an SFBOL account *EVEN IF* registered to play in any online (SFBOL) tournament starting after July 29, 2009 in which the Judge of RAT 1 (Paul Scott) is not allowed to participate. (Currently that mean Rated Ace Tournament #32). Of course, if you have any moral back bone, you won't participate in the official RATs, but I'll leave that to you, rather than bribe you.
6. How to register: email to aaeamdar at yahoo dot com with SFBOL nickname and your ship choice (and, optionally, suggestions for "R" and "A").
7. This will go forward if at least 32 people register.
Question
Just to make sure I understand: as long as the judge of this tournament is not allowed to play on sanctioned SFBOL tournaments, players cannot play in both official RATs and unofficial RATs? Is that right?
Yes.
I won't hide my intentions. I tried appealing to people's conscious and asked them to withdraw from the RATs until the Steves reinstated me. That got a lot of "Yeah, what they are doing is wrong" and got zero actual help. So, I am trying to see if running a tournament with cash prizes in competition with the RATs will work. If people were allowed to play in both, then one of my objectives - to help persuade ADB to do the right thing - could not be accomplished. This may fail too. But I figure there might be some people more interested in an actual cash prize then a tournament without rewards. We'll see.
Well Then
Apparently enough people are either offended or took this in the wrong light, so I changed the entry conditions.
Of course, if any of you happen to fall on the wrong side of Cole and get unfairly banned, I will refuse to play in tournaments until that is rectified. Doing that is what got me banned in the first place.
However, I do recognize that few people have that sort of moral character. I also realize that what amounted to bribing people without such character into doing things my way was not the right way. I didn't see it that way at first. I saw it as just offering a choice to play in one of two competing tournaments. But, really, it is tantamount to just sending you all a check for $20 to withdraw from RAT32. So I am retracting that requirement.
I still think you should do what is right, and that means not playing in RAT32 or other sanctioned events. But I'll leave that to you.
I'll still run this tournament and I'll still put up the cash for the prizes.
Well Then Part II
Paul,
I still think throwing comments about peoples' "moral backbone" into this is kind of putting it in peoples' faces a bit much. I understand your opinion but some people may not share it. Better to let the tournament attendance speak for itself. If these RATs become more populous and run faster/better than the official RATs, let that be the message. Heck, it would be even more of a message from your standpoint if there are no restrictions and no prizes and these become better attended. But I would not take away or even discourage the option of people playing in both. Not everyone knows or is forced to believe one version or the other of events. Let the community speak for itself with attendance.
Ken
It is putting it in their face
but then I have never been one that is shy about my opinion. I think people playing in or Judging RAT32 (and to a lesser extent RAT31, 30 and WL) are either:
1. People who agree with Cole (I, of course, disagree with them, but respect their opinion); or
2. People who think Cole is wrong to do what he is doing, but lack the moral fiber to take a stance on it; or
3. Just don't care one way or the other.
I can respect, though not agree with those in category #1 and understand those in category #3. Those in category #2 I don't get and whether it is considered a pejorative or simply a descriptive, our English language does have a word that is defined by people who choose not to stick up for what they believe owing to fear of the consequences. I don't find it's use inappropriate.
As for everything else you said, I agree. That's why I changed the conditions of the tournament so anyone can play in either tournament. As already admitted, that initial condition was poorly conceived by me. I certainly apologize for having done it.
Belaboring the Point
I think it's all good. I just would not want you to inadverdently turn people off to whatever goes down here by coming across in a way that you don't intend (or do intend :).
I view this whole thing as pretty silly and wish it could be rectified amicably. That has not happened as of yet and the trenches dug are so deep that either "side" feels like they stand to lose face if they are perceived as "admitting they were wrong." I would like to think there is some middle ground between "you apologize" and "nuh uh, you apologize."
The tournament community is already down and out on both number of tournaments and attendance and need not be fractured further. Sadly, it is. I say that as one of the many people who stopped playing tournament SFB about 5 years ago. I am part of the problem. Things like these schizms don't generally bring people back when they see how petty these disputes can be. I am not putting anyone down just understanding that when battle lines get drawn, people pick sides, even if they do not have the whole story. We will either see a resurgence of SFB tournament play or the final death knells of the tournament in the next 1-2 years.
Ken
And...
I always thought of you as shy and reserved... :)
Point in fact
Firstly, I agree with everything you said above in paragraph 3.
Secondly, I agree with you that this whole thing is incredibly stupid and also hope it can be rectified amicably.
Thirdly, and my only point of disagreement with you, is that *my* trench (I can't speak for ADB's) is not dug that deeply. I am not at all worried about losing face by admitting I am wrong. To the contrary, as can be seen in the letter I sent to them, I encourage them to convince me I am wrong and I said I would apologize if they were successful. I encourage all of you to do likewise - if you think I am wrong say so and say why and if I agree I'll apologize and make good.
As evidence, I just did that here with this issue. I do not have a problem admitting I made a mistake and apologizing for it when it happens. To me, this is not about losing face. It is about caving in to those with power when you are right. I will always and gladly admit when I am wrong. I won't, however, be forced to do something I think is wrong just because someone with power tells me to. That is the difference.
Remember RAT 24?
Paul, two concerns.
One - What's in this for the community? Yes, I know, you want to build a cascade of public opinion to get Steve to admit that he's wrong. The only 'public opinion' Steve cares about regarding SFB and running the tournament is sales figures. They've been declining for SFB and holding steady for FC. The likely result of you succeeding here is not an apology from Steve, it's Steve deciding that SFB tournament play isn't worth the trouble of supporting.
Two - Why should we trust your ability to run a RAT, after the last one you attempted to run (RAT 24), where you went two months without direct communication in RAT 24. Eventually, you were dismissed as a judge from it for lack of communications, the only time in 31 RATs that this has happened. I would've expected, after your numerous complaints about how prior RATs ran long, that you'd've had the courtesy to tell people you were travelling overseas. It's not like the tournament announcement tools require you to log into the BBS.
For those who don't remember:
First email announcing RAT24: 8/21/07
First complaint of pairings: 8/25/07
Email from you saying you're out of the country: 9/22/07
Date I posted from your email explaining this on the SFB BBS: 9/23/07
Date you said you'd resolve all issues: 10/02/07
Date where I sent an email asking if you were back yet: 10/06/07
Date Paul was dismissed as the judge of RAT24: ~10/10/07
I do not dispute your right to run an SFB tournament without ADB's blessing. I acknowledge that you have legitimate complaints with Steve and ADB. Is trying to prove that your group of followers is bigger in the best interests of the SFB tournament player base?
Yup. RAT24 was a disaster of my own making
I am sorry about that. If people don't trust me to run a tournament, that would be understandable. It won't happen again, or rather, since I can never promise "real life" won't prevent me from carrying out an obligation to Judge a tournament, if it does I will take the time to make sure someone picks up for me. You can accept that or not accept that. That is a problem of my own making and I just have to live with whatever consequences there may be.
As to your second question, I don't really have an answer. I think people should make their opinions know to Cole. I think they should do that with their words, with their money and with their participation. I certainly agree with you, however, that how Cole chooses to react to those opinions is not something any of us control.
Moral Fiber?
Please lets not get into moral fiber in the context of a game or gaming community. No laws or ethics are being violated here.
I disagree with SVC most of the time, but I view it as the price of admission for playing his game, I suspect that's the position that most in the community find themselves in.
Just because we don't choose to tilt at windmills for the sake of a dumb hobby doesn't mean in any sense that we lack moral fiber.
Never saw your appeal for
Never saw your appeal for this. So I guess I fall into category 4 :)
Seriously, this isn't going to help - whether people are playing an 'Official' RAT, or your one, they're going to be using SFBOL, which means Steve gets his cut of the subscription fee.
And, unless it affects his bottom line, he just doesn't care.
Perhaps he sees your failure to submit 'Victory' papers in that light - decreasing sales.
It also doesn't help that the signups for Co5n are already larger than the 'Official' tourney at Origins. That's gotta be a smack in the ego. But even pulling the sanction doesn't hurt him - financially.
Anyways ... best of luck, and hope things get resolved.
Pulling out of events
While I agree that banning you from future sanctioned events was wrong, what good would pulling out of a RAT do? I sign up for RATs because I want to play and nowadays most of my games are RAT games as I don't play as often as I used to. Before this new tournament of yours, what other online Rated Ace event would I have participated in? I pay my 60 bucks a year so I can play. While I disagree with your banning, me pulling out of a RAT for somebody else's sake would achieve little other then bumming me out because I wanted to play. I'd never expect anybody to pull out of a RAT for my sake.
alternative interface?
I'd love to play in an independent RAT event, but I won't give money to ADB via SFBOL. What are the legalities of reinstating Gregg's old software, which IIRC was not owned by ADB, for people in my position?
I harbor no ill-will towards Paul Franz, for whom I hold the utmost respect. It's just SVC and that other douchebag who created the majority of the SSDs and counters for the official SFBOL version.
Hmmm
I am not sure who the "other DB" is that created the SSDs and counters for the new client.
Ken
not sure
Sorry Ken, it's been a few years and I don't recall his name. He's the guy who posts pics of his minis and ran a big campaign several years back. He had some "interesting" views on the ability of same-sex couples to properly raise children, IIRC.
Old Client
I think that it's too much trouble for the sake of SVC not being the recipient of a few dollars. Not to mention all the upgradigng required to bring it up to par with the current client. Then all the bug fixes and upkeep. Who's gonna do that?
Besides, how much does does he get for a year's subscription anyways? 5 bucks?
I don't know if this is who Jude's talking about
But the two biggest ship contributors on SFBOL are Kenneth Jones (Kludge) and Aaron Staley (Awwwwdrat). Aaron has also decided to not do things for ADB any more, and refuses to do anything that puts money in their pockets.
Aaron is someone who got banned from the SFB BBS on multiple occasions for his political views - he was too right wing.
yup, I meant Aaron
I missed the drama, being out of the loop for awhile. Doesn't surprise me Aaron was banned, but at the time SVC was awfully coy about dodging around the issue.
Kludge is a solid bloke.
Just my opinion
and I fully understand you not wanting to give *any* money to Cole, but I for one would love to have you back and playing online. I have seen quite a few (though we certainly need a lot more) former players show up here now that they can have an SFB forum outside of the control of ADB. I know it would mean giving a few bucks (it really is not that much - most of your money goes to Paul, a small amount to Gregg and a small amount to ADB) to Cole each year, but please consider it. I know I miss playing you and having you in the tournaments.
Aww shucks
I miss playing with you guys too! I was thinking about SFB recently and how my last SFBOL sojourn was the worst tourney experience in my life (Electronic Hat, feeling dirty paying $100 to SVC, only to have every single game be decided by flukey die-rolls; even the one I somehow managed to win vs. Tom). Maybe I'll sign up for a quarter and see if I can shake the bad memories.
I did sneak online recently as "demo" to watch Bill and Ken's Hat finals game, which was fun.