 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Babs |
|
Post subject: I have questions...
 Posted: Mar 22, 2005 - 08:56 PM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Australia
Posts: 742
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
2. What role, if any, should the NAF have in creating/modifying rules for Blood Bowl?
None
This seems to be a very political answer, (and I am not picking on Lucy - pretty much this sums up all the candidate's responses), but this implies a radical change to having _less_ of an effect than we have now.
Let me explain through an example.... 
The prices of star player purchase, through the BBRC, have dramatically increased, directly through the ruleset played at and adapted as 'common tournament ground' through many NAF tournaments. 
Whether you like to admit it or not, we, the NAF, are having an effect on the Blood Bowl ruleset. It may be minor, it may only vaguely be directly tied to anything OFFICIAL the NAF does, but there's plenty of effect on the ruleset. Just at the moment it's not consciously, but rather just happening out of a symbiotic relationship that the BBRC and the NAF kind of have (and don't get me to explain that here.) 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's my questions:
1. Given that we _DO_ have some impact on the ruleset, should there be some tightening on the rules played with during tournaments? (some candidates have already affirmed this) If so how - be specific on the rules or the process to ascertain the rules. 
2. Many candidates have mentioned that they want the NAF to be more 'prominent' and have more members. Does this involve a specific plan to retain members? (if so, how?) 
2b. Given membership enlargement is a key issue, how would you see this happening from our current membership base? Would you consider 'referrals' (new members signed up by an existing member) for member points which could be used to 'buy' exclusive NAF merchandise?  (To encourage people to sign up others) or is this too radical and the wrong direction? (After all, membership growth is attained by radical schemes like loopy pyramid schemes!) 
...that'll do given Neoliminal's questions haven't been answered by all candidates yet.... |
_________________
=-) Babs
Washed up old has been.
Ex-official GW Blood Bowl Rules Committee member
Ex-NAF Tournament Organiser, Australasia
Co-Author of the Feudball first novel.
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 23, 2005 - 06:32 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
Babs wrote: 1. Given that we _DO_ have some impact on the ruleset, should there be some tightening on the rules played with during tournaments? (some candidates have already affirmed this) If so how - be specific on the rules or the process to ascertain the rules.
As mentioned in my reply to Neo's original question. It is not the NAF committee that has the influence over the rules, it is the members themselves. To date the NAF has not itself run any tournaments nor has it specified any one ruleset that must be used at NAF events. Instead it has been an open system that has been allowed to evolve naturally over time into something that works in each individual region. Now if we are to consider the pure effects that the NAF as a whole has had simply by existing and facilitating tournaments then yes the NAF has had effects on the BBRC and the official rules of the game. But that has never come from any official policy or strict guidelines.
I do not believe there should be a tightening of the rules played with during tournaments. I've mentioned previously that there are a number of ways we can go with a ranking system. One way would be to have a very serious system. All tournaments run from a basic set of rules with only minor changes. In that system there would be no league style events, no Blood Bowl variant style events, no custom pitch events, etc. A pure Blood Bowl ruleset so that we could have a very serious ranking system. Alternatively we can continue to evolve naturally as we are doing now. Many different types of events trying many different things. Some things working better than others. Some rules working better in some regions than others. A greater emphasis on having fun at the event than simply winning at all costs in order to increase ones ranking. Personally the first system sounds pretty dull to me. It sounds to me like a power gamers paradise where only min-max teams will be played to their utmost broken ability. The NAF would be turned into the rules police of Blood Bowl. I would not like to see Blood Bowl turned into that. It could be said that a middle ground could be found. Allowing only some types of variants and not others. Maybe giving a selection of rules for TO's to choose from. Still under that system though growth would be stifled. New idea's would not be allowed to be explored unless approved by some type of "rules committee". The NAF would be bogged down in rules question and policing. Some regions would inevitably begin to resent the NAF for not allowing their variant into the official ruleset. That would not be the best of scenarios either.
An open policy to allow all regions to evolve naturally in their own way is the best policy. It has proven itself to work and find it's own balance and will continue to do so in the future. Blood Bowl coaches are a smart group of people. TO's have a specific vision for their event and they should be allowed the freedom to explore that vision. If it's a good idea, people will go. If not, they won't. It should not be the goal of the NAF to bend the will of all Blood Bowl coaches to itself. Instead it should be the NAF that evolves to accommodate the will of it's members.
Babs wrote: 2. Many candidates have mentioned that they want the NAF to be more 'prominent' and have more members. Does this involve a specific plan to retain members? (if so, how?)
I've outlined in my platform a number of ways that I will make the membership more involved in the NAF itself. Foremost to this is the change from one VP to three. Under the current committee setup there is administrative representation for only one or two major NAF markets. This leaves members not in those markets feeling left out of the process. I want to bring everyone up to an equal level of administrative representation. A VP for each of the major markets will accomplish that goal.
I've also outlined my intentions to create a moderators group for the forum area. The forum area as it stands now is a mess. Sticky posts endure for months after they are no longer relevant. New events take weeks even months to get the attention required. It's generally a mess and not helpful in creating a comfortable environment for discussion. Creating a moderators group and cleaning up the forum will help to maintain the soul of the web site and not leave members with a feeling that it has become un-cared for and run down.
The reworking of the NAF membership signup and renewal system. There are obvious problems with the system. It's costly and time consuming. Rethinking and reworking how we handle membership signups will not only make current members happier when they renew, it will ease the process for new members to join.
Members want to feel included in the whole process. At the moment there is a distinct feeling of a two tiered system. The administration and then the members. Key points of my platform are about resolving that issue and building a stronger more open relationship between the members and the committee. Through efforts such as joint committee's to resolve the ranking issues and member run moderator groups I will include the membership in the NAF as equals. Running the NAF is a group effort.
Babs wrote: 2b. Given membership enlargement is a key issue, how would you see this happening from our current membership base? Would you consider 'referrals' (new members signed up by an existing member) for member points which could be used to 'buy' exclusive NAF merchandise? (To encourage people to sign up others) or is this too radical and the wrong direction? (After all, membership growth is attained by radical schemes like loopy pyramid schemes!)
At the moment everything is on the table. We need to get the NAF name out there and if a referral system is what it takes then maybe that is what needs to be done. I always like to start from a point where all options possible are available and then work down to what works best and makes the most sense. If any members have any suggestions I would be most happy to put them on the table as a viable option for growth. In my view though a key issue for growth is visibility. People need to know who the NAF are and what the NAF is about. I was at a tournament this past weekend where a coach was cursing the NAF for all the recent rules changes. He didn't realise that it was the BBRC and not the NAF that worked on the rules of Blood Bowl. The NAF name and logo needs to get out there. Information about what the NAF is and what the NAF does needs to be easily accessible to those interested in finding out. Visibility in Warhammer magazines and in the rule book. In the team and game box. War gamers at large need to know that Blood Bowl is alive and well. |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Deathwing |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 24, 2005 - 06:58 AM
|
|
Former President
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
England
Posts: 1289
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
First of all, apologies for the delay in replying, of all the time to get ISP issues at home!  So catching up (from the gf's house):
Melifaxis wrote: How about a tough one. Other than yourself, who do you think is the best man for the job and why?
Of the current candidates or of the membership at large/other nominees who declined?
neoliminal wrote: Three questions from an Ex-President:
1. With hindsight, if you could go back in time and change one major thing about the NAF from it's inception, what would it be?
2. What role, if any, should the NAF have in creating/modifying rules for Blood Bowl?
3. What one thing will people remember about your term in office?
1. Hindsight's a wonderful thing.  I think the single most contentious issue is the time for membership packages to arrive. On the issue of individually printed cards/letters and the time involved in such a system vs. generic letters and cards (with name and no. written in), I think we went with the wrong decision in hindsight.
2. None.
3. Hmm...tricky. I'd say that people would probably remember realising the originally stated aim of combined rankings.
Babs wrote:
1. Given that we _DO_ have some impact on the ruleset, should there be some tightening on the rules played with during tournaments? (some candidates have already affirmed this) If so how - be specific on the rules or the process to ascertain the rules.
2. Many candidates have mentioned that they want the NAF to be more 'prominent' and have more members. Does this involve a specific plan to retain members? (if so, how?)
2b. Given membership enlargement is a key issue, how would you see this happening from our current membership base? Would you consider 'referrals' (new members signed up by an existing member) for member points which could be used to 'buy' exclusive NAF merchandise? (To encourage people to sign up others) or is this too radical and the wrong direction? (After all, membership growth is attained by radical schemes like loopy pyramid schemes!)
1. I believe we've covered this already in response to karllagerbottom's question. See my post of 17th March, 7.52pm on page 3 of this thread. I'm in agreement with Brian on this one.
2+2b. Again we're covering old ground to a certain extent. Referring to combined rankings, I wote "I believe that's the single most important thing we can do in order to " increase, maintain and enthuse the NAF membership" . Brian's idea of a sheet to be included in the box set is very worthwhile if possible. If we could offer combined rankings/league registration on such a sheet wouldn't that really be something?
Availability of NAF exclusive figures (again as previously mentioned) will help make membership more attractive. Addressing key issues such as greater communication (as cited by pretty much all of us), distribution issues, getting the membership more directly involved/informed etc will improve on the solid foundation we have now and will go a long way towards retaining existing members.
I'm not sure about a referral scheme to be honest. We'd have to look closely at the effort involved in setting up such a scheme, the maintainence overheads required v. the possible benefits. Ideally, I'd like to see a situation where we we offer enough to our members that they'd enthuse to non-members about the benefits of membership regardless of any possible personal gain. |
_________________
 Ex-UK NTO,ex- Senior Tourney Co-Ordinator, ex-VP and ex-President....because Lycos says that new members don't know who I was..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 24, 2005 - 09:26 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
Woody, with respect to the league ranking system how do you plan to police the single most important thing we can do in order to " increase, maintain and enthuse the NAF membership" ? I have serious doubts as to how the integrity of that system will be maintained. How are you going to be sure that all the data entered into the system is correct? How are you going to ensure league results are kept up to date? How are you going to be sure that people are who they say they are? It would be a simple matter for some joker to invent a league, pay 60 bucks to register a few fake members and invent a whole season of league results. It would take only one such case to throw the whole system into doubt. The system should be built, of this we both agree. I don't agree that the single most important thing we can do is build a system that needs constant babysitting and is easily thrown into turmoil. These questions are not new and I'd be very interested to hear how you've solved them. If we are going to ask members to pay more or to jump through hoops to prove their honesty to use the system how will that attract new members? It is quite simply easier and faster to do the whole thing on a laptop at home in Excel. Yes the NAF league system would be tied to tournaments but if those individuals are not already going to tournaments what will be the incentive to join up? Will simply being able to tie minuscule league points into a tournament system they are already not involved in be enough to bring new people out to a tournament? Not likely.
The system needs to be finished. Of that there is no doubt. But wouldn't it make more sense to offer a league tracking system free of charge to anyone who wanted to use it. Coaches the world over could use the system to track their leagues and in the process become comfortable with the NAF and the NAF web site. There are many coaches who are simply opposed to the NAF because it is a pay-to-use web site. If we offered the league tracking service as a less serious open system that did not cost anything to join, then you may see leagues who are not already NAF members using it. It would be a fantastic way to encourage web site traffic. There has been much talk during this debate about how we are going to give more to the members. Wouldn't providing this service as a free service to all coaches be a great show of good will? |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Deathwing |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 24, 2005 - 11:45 AM
|
|
Former President
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
England
Posts: 1289
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Brian, if you're going to paste earlier bits of the thread again, I'll respond on the same vein  :
Quote: Many leagues out there already have in place online tracking/results entry etc. on their own sites, and there's tools available to do that out there. Online tracking here wouldn't offer anything unique (in fact QUILT offers that now), but the NAF and only the NAF could offer integrated tournament and league rankings. It always was a mission statement from day one and I believe we should implement it. I know from talking to coaches at tournaments that it's something that our members want.
Of course I'm as aware as anybody what a mammoth undertaking it'll be (which is why it's been placed on the back burner so often), but I'm confident that with the right group of people in place the (considerable) hurdles aren't insurmountable.
I'm not going to spell out in exact detail how we'd achieve this, it's far too premature. We have a lot of work ahead of us, but I believe we've certainly got the technical know how and experience within our ranks (from a specifically formed commitee with feedback and help from the community) to get this done. You know full well that it has always been a mission statement and part of John's vision from day one. You also know that Anthony also sees it as the next logical step. Our tournament playing members want it, and how many leagues are there out there with some members who play in tournaments and non-members who don't? This is the perfect opportunity to bring those players into the fold and make them part of our community here. I see it as vital for the future, and I believe it's time we prioritised it.
With the debate process due to close tomorrow, I don't believe this is the time or place to get into a detailed debate about how we'd go about getting this done. (And apart from that, my lack of internet access at home for the next couple of days pretty much precludes it anyway).
Have I solved the inherent problems by myself at this point? No.
Do I believe the problems are insurmountable? No.
We already offer League tracking though QUILT. I use it for my league and all members love the facility. It's underrated, under promoted and probably underused at present.
OK, I'm about done. This may well be my last post before the debate process closes. If so, I'd like to thank the members who took the time to post (very good) questions, and thank all the other candidates for the gentlemanly way that this has been conducted (although I expected nothing less knowing you guys ). I've certainly taken on board a lot of thoughts and ideas, I think this has been a very worthwhile discussion whoever runs out the eventual winner.
On that note, good luck gents! |
_________________
Ex-UK NTO,ex- Senior Tourney Co-Ordinator, ex-VP and ex-President....because Lycos says that new members don't know who I was..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 24, 2005 - 01:59 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
Deathwing wrote: Brian, if you're going to paste earlier bits of the thread again, I'll respond on the same vein
I've gone back to the topic again because you never answered the question.
Deathwing wrote: I'm not going to spell out in exact detail how we'd achieve this, it's far too premature.
This project has indeed been on the books from day one. However, after three years of work, two years of which the NAF has been open, at what point might it no longer be premature? There are fundamental problems with the whole concept. The system cannot be easily maintained. The information entered into it cannot be verified.
I understand your reluctance to answer the question Woody. I myself would have the same trouble to do so. I have been in several meeting with John and Anthony where we've tried to pound out the problems with the system. Every time you try to close one hole another pops up. It has always been a complete headache of data policing and membership verifications. I only come back to the question though because on more than one occasion you have stated that this is the single most important thing we can do yet there are no explanations as to how we are going to do it?
As I've said several times the system should be completed. However, to hinge all of our hopes on a ranking system that will in the end be governed by the honor system is simply not the best way forward. |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Lucy |
|
|
Post subject: Re: I have questions...
Posted: Mar 24, 2005 - 03:09 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 459
Status: Offline
|
|
Babs wrote: 1. Given that we _DO_ have some impact on the ruleset, should there be some tightening on the rules played with during tournaments? (some candidates have already affirmed this) If so how - be specific on the rules or the process to ascertain the rules.
Like I stated, I do think we have some influence on the tournament ruleset, but I don't think we should enforce them. I think we should make clear what we expect from TO's and write in the charter what we except and what we dismiss.
In my case, local clashes between nations should be acceptable (even though they're not open), streetbowls shouldn't. Anything where all teams have the same chance as they have now (under the LRB) should be acceptable, but 1.5 TR sound a bit over the edge.
But, these should be discussed later on.
Babs wrote: 2. Many candidates have mentioned that they want the NAF to be more 'prominent' and have more members. Does this involve a specific plan to retain members? (if so, how?)
I don't think the NAF should have more members per sé. But I do think we should make ourselves known more. In my opnion, that means that TO's should try to be more active and advertise on websites if possible. Actually, I think TO's should and could be more active on more levels. Furthermore, we should try to help and encourage others to spread the word (hallelujah, praise Nuffle ) in areas where few members seem to know where the players are, but these players don't know about the NAF.
Babs wrote: 2b. Given membership enlargement is a key issue, how would you see this happening from our current membership base? Would you consider 'referrals' (new members signed up by an existing member) for member points which could be used to 'buy' exclusive NAF merchandise? (To encourage people to sign up others) or is this too radical and the wrong direction? (After all, membership growth is attained by radical schemes like loopy pyramid schemes!)
I'm quite in favor of this system. I think we could organise a system where referrals could give you a discount or something similar, for each persons which use you as a referral.
But, this has to be discussed with the computer guys, because it sounds easier than it looks.
Lucy |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Torpor |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 25, 2005 - 02:29 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 18, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 157
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Answering the last couple of questions-
Babs wrote:
Quote: 1. Given that we _DO_ have some impact on the ruleset, should there be some tightening on the rules played with during tournaments?
Guidelines on how to run a tournament so that players will have an enjoyable time? Yes.
NAF telling tournament organisers what ruleset to use to promote a particular agenda. Hell no.
I concede that BBRC members do look at NAF tournament data when reviewing the effects of their decisions or looking with a weather eye on what needs modifying. However, any individual tinkering with rulesets should be left to the tournament organiser. NAF should not be telling tournament organisers to modify tournament rules to be a laboratory for the BBRC or GW. As long as any modifications are fair and reasonable (open to debate as to what that means admittedly), NAF should permit them. As an example, several tournaments are going for a +1/+1 dirty player skill. Should NAF tell them to cease and desist? No. Should NAF encourage other tournaments to adopt this rule modification because several BBRC members are interested in the effect that this rule would have on the game and to do so would give them more data? Once again the answer is no.
In answer to Babs' second question (both parts), I believe that all of the candidates, including myself, have answered that previously. With regard to membership points or some other 'scheme' to encourage people to sign up, NAF should work at providing enough content that players will join without resorting to gimmicks. If NAF offers exclusive merchandise, it should be offered to all members equally and should not be dependent upon who they are or how many points of one sort or another that they have accumulated. Some members are not more equal than others
I would like to thank Lucy (Andre), Cyberhare (Brian) and Deathwing (Woody) for the last week or so's debate. It was refreshing to hear the ideas out in the open and the process conducted in a civilized manner. I would also like to thank the membership for coming up with some excellent questions and as importantly stopping by to read the answers. Good luck to everyone  |
_________________
Helping other players' ratings since 2004...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 25, 2005 - 05:11 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 1146
|
|
Well it looks like things are wrapping up and everyone is saying their thank-you's so I'll do the same.
Over the last 11 days we have all taken part in a historic event for the NAF. The first NAF presidential election race. Though the task is not yet at it's end I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate or is about to cast their vote. The democratic process only works when people take part in it. The past 11 days have shown me that there are definitely NAF members who are keenly interested in making that process work.
I especially thank my co-candidates,Deathwing (Woody), Lucy (Andre) and Torpor (Philip) for their open and honest remarks. The intelligent debate that has taken place gives me great hope for the future. You have each conducted yourselves as gentlemen and I tip my hat in the spirit of good luck to each of you in the upcoming vote. |
_________________
Brian St.James
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
KarlLagerbottom |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 25, 2005 - 07:13 PM
|
|
Joined: May 25, 2004
Undisclosed
Posts: 1148
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
I am still making my way through this thread...but I was wondering if it might not just be easier for the candidates played a four-on-four "Death Bowl" style match to determine the winner?
-Rob
I just thought I'd inject some silliness. Oh and one more question...do we have the option for a write-in ballot so I can vote for myself or Griff?
EDIT: On a serious note now that I've made it all the way through...I have a couple of ideas on some of the issues that were debated. Realizing that the debate portion of the election is now over I won't list them here. (No time for any response to them from the candidates.) However, if the eventual winner is interested please PM me. |
_________________
Karl Lagerbottom - Dwarf Blocker of Renown
NAF Member #5236
---
 
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
