NAF World Headquarters
NAF World Cup - What's the difference between NAFWCI and NAFWCII?
Korgluk - Feb 23, 2011 - 04:31 PM
Post subject: What's the difference between NAFWCI and NAFWCII?
In 1998 5 people found the LBN in small city El Prat, later they would happen to call G5.
From 5 players up to more than 30 players in 13 years:
http://www.lbnweb.com/historia.php
In 2007 we have the first graphical document of LBN History.LBN TEAM plays Dream Team Cup (biggest spanish bb tournament):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zufz_slwsYE&feature=related
In summer 2007 LBN organizes a secret bb tournament in a secret place with people from different countries!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOIrAjEKrSw
In the final 2007 a new organization (PGA) appears to try to steal to the G5 the power of the LBN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY8_hd14Eeg&feature=related
In 2008 LBN plays Dirty Player Cup... you can see the final of tournament in a big stadium behind two dancers!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meFq35dy5qI&feature=related
In summer 2008 starts the 14ªLBN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrYQfpHf_SE&feature=related
In September 2008 PGA (Dark Side) tries to dominate de LBN from darkness but G-5 (Jedis) resists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAWvyXG07_Y&NR=1
In Febrary 2009 G5 plays another Dream Team Cup, korgluk(minotaur), pako(ideologist), Volstagg(norse), Eolallo(wardancer) and Soward(just Soward!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFUZiSPTvgU&feature=related
Surely you think that they don't play their matches like that, are you sure?
http://www.youtube.com/user/Lukechin19#p/u/28/ANh135fxXLw
Skull Cup'09 Preview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxrhCNWHR2U&feature=related
El Prat TV report Skull Cup'09
http://www.elprat.tv/?lnkVid=515
November 2009. Traveling with The LBN! Dutty Free... road to Modena
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gjvw5rTL7M&feature=rec-LGOUT-real_rev-rn-1r-4-HM
Skull Cup'10 Intro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzVDLR2N0XU
Korgluk managed to exile Volstagg and to be done by the power of the LBN for years. Finally Volstagg returned to take revenge in Skull Cup 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im3Vh0XNWK8&feature=related
DirtyPlayerCup'10
7:00 am from Saturday tournament, 2 hours to round 1... all people sleep?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEdFLylU_wY&feature=related
Santakolisseum Tag Team'10, Pako and Eolallo 'playing' BB like G5 plays!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Lukechin19#p/u/2/2iZ-1g_9M5A
In 2007 G5 played NAFWCI. In NAFWCI there was one team supported by his city, our Mayor decided to subsidize part of the costs in order that represent The Prat in the bb world cup.
In 2008 we try that will be considered to be a country like we feel as such. We just asked to including El Prat in the list the countries of the ranking... it's was impossible... Finally all players from El Prat put like Monaco as you can see at ranking.
We don't play BB... we live BB since 1998 and I cannot believe that LBN wolln't play NAFWC, we have been waiting 4 years to return to NAFWC!
I'm the LBN president and I need that NAF explains to me why the LBN doesn't play NAFWC! I know that there are teams with players not-registred in NAF still!!!
The difference between NAFWCI and NAFWCII is that the country with biggest porcentage of bloodbowl players will not play NAFWC.
EDIT: If someone prefers pics we have more than thousand...
http://public.fotki.com/korgluk/
Cabezacubo - Feb 23, 2011 - 11:41 PM
Post subject: RE: What
LBN must play NAFWC!
LBN is the best league and group of players that I´ve ever meet. Their spirit is all that Blood Bowl should be and the Skull Cup (their spanish tourney) is simply the best.
GO LBN!GO GO GO!
Doubleskulls - Feb 23, 2011 - 11:51 PM
Post subject: RE: What
Because other people want to go too, and not everyone can fit in the venue. Just because your league has a long and auspicious history doesn't give you any advantage - and nor should it.
Elyoukey - Feb 24, 2011 - 01:31 AM
Post subject: RE: What
Notice that same demonstration could be done with the MBBC, organising one of the most famous tournament (Bowl des vignes) in France, and growing coaches for years.
And what about the French Naf coordonator (Sebco himself) who could not participate ...
i think everybody is 'sorry' (exact term depending of their position in the list) for the lack of space for the WCII.
speaking about myself, i would be ready to pay double the price if it managed some space for those teams to enter. (but no, i am not altruist enough to concede my place)
Pako - Feb 24, 2011 - 02:35 AM
Post subject:
I can understand Korgluk. I am very disappointed too. But also I think this way will not work at all. Sorry Padiblatter...
Saying so.
I think NAF management of NAF WC II was horrible.
NAF, as any organized group of people or club, should grant somehow its more veteran members. That's because are veteran members the ones that supported NAF in previous years. The ones that demonstrate commitement with the organization. Most of clubs, organizations or groups have special offers, advantadges to pick events or prizes for veteran members.
NAF does not.
Not only that. You're sending out NAF WC II a group of people who is coming to NAF events for 6 years, organizing a very popular NAF event in Spain, bla bla bla...
New people coming NAF WC II deserve the opportunity to feel the experience. Agree. NAF WC should not be limited in terms of space. Hope so in the future. But when we have limited places... From NAF point of view new people are a question. Will they remain in the NAF and add their effort and enthusiasm? Or they forget about NAF in couple of years? For sure no perfect solution is possible in present situation, but I don't think all the people gave NAF the same. So, as WC is "the NAF tourney", should not be for the players to more supported NAF?
From the point of view of an organization, who depends on membership fidelity, management of WC II is countersingning its interests.
What about (I'm just wondering) if LBN turns SkullCup non-NAF, stops to travel and ends their NAF membership? In that case, NAF will lose 6 active, commited members, to allow 6 other people (who, by the way, can give NAF more than LBN, OR NOT) to come.
Maybe NAF will lose 12 people.
I'm not saying that newbies will be forbidden. I'm saying that, in case of conflict, NAF depends on players. Veteran players supported NAF and also NAF WC I. What about if we never came first time? Could be a NAF WC II? Guess not.
Critical point is that this is not a regular tourney. This is the NAF tourney. For NAF players. And if some NAF players gave NAF more than others. They deserve more than others.
If, as I suggested a year ago, NAF WC organization or NAF by itself guaranted veteran players to come, NAF as organization gave a prize to its members related with their support in past years. That's a good point for an institution which wants people joining AND REMAINING.
From my point of view, explained couple of times, never eared, NAF is going wrong.
Moreover. The thing that really bites me is that Eurobowl is NAF-sanctioned, and in fact it haves priorities in terms of joining. I don't want to ear about Eurobowl is "special" or such this type of crab. NAF is changing their mind depending on the tourney and players involved. Not fair. Simply not fair.
Turn Eurobowl frist come, frist served. Don't want it? Hummmm I see...in Eurobowl all players don't deserve to play...
NAF don't care.
Get it.
Don't you think that for a such a veteran player, who never will play Eurobowl (I'm not such veteran enough) and in not going to play NAF WC II (no matter how veteran I am) NAF is simply laughing in my face?
Thank you NAF.
My tourney is NAF, 3€ discount each NAF player for counting for the fucking ranking (never care about it) and a White metal trophy.
6 years NAF membership
Came to the NAF WC I (by the way, saving your ass in that risky bussiness, don't think I deserve some grateful to support you with a 600€ travel?).
What do NAF for me?
Less than nothing. Fucking the tourney that I was expecting for 4 years. For sure I wanted to pay yo 4 years ago my ticket for 2011. A year ago I was asking for joining. Before lottery I was asking why this way.
Why this way.
We do us the same for you than all NAF members? If you think so. Well... no comments.
My two cents. Thank you. I will be shocked if any response (not can imagine official one) comes. 
Darkson - Feb 24, 2011 - 03:05 AM
Post subject:
With attitudes like this, maybe best you're not coming to WCII.
"I'm special - me me me! It's all about me!"
Maybe next time you can submit a bid to the NAF with unlimited space, where the world and their uncle can come, seeing as you think it's so easy?
And what makes you think having NAF numbers in the '000s (7383 and 7407) makes you veterans - there are people with numbers lower than mine (102) that have missed out. A NAF member is a NAF member, regardless of whether they're #10 or #10000 - there is no "Veteran Premium".
You missed out on a over-subscribed tournament in a random draw - Stop whining.
Pako - Feb 24, 2011 - 03:22 AM
Post subject:
Darkson wrote:
With attitudes like this, maybe best you're not coming to WCII.
"I'm special - me me me! It's all about me!"
You missed out on a over-subscribed tournament in a random draw - Stop whining.
This is not the case.
1- If you're member of Real Madrid C.F. , Reader's Club, a young club, etc. you have extra points with time. Isn't it?
2- This is not because we were out. Check my posts. This is my point BEFORE random draw... 
3- This is not because us. Is about NAF policy with members. I'm right with you in before me... I just want to know if NAF don't care about how much time you are here.
4- Eurobowl is also an over-subscribed tournament. Let's put random draw. 
Quote:
With attitudes like this, maybe best you're not coming to WCII.
5- What attitude? Discuss about NAF policy? Express my opinion? Point out Eurobowl privileges? Hummmm... Thank you for your kindly opinion and positive discuss about my thoughts...
Darkson - Feb 24, 2011 - 03:40 AM
Post subject:
Where does it say that the length of time you've been a member of the NAF means you get first "dibs" to the WC?
The Charter? No.
The WCII rules? No.
The WCI rules and follow-up? No.
The Presidents/NTOs/any NAF staff you care to mentions manifesto? No.
Just because Club A gives a bonus for "length of time", doesn't automatically mean that Club B does.
The NAF doesn't.
Pako wrote:
5- What attitude?
If you can't see any attitude in your post, then maybe you need to stop posting.
TuernRedvenom - Feb 24, 2011 - 03:40 AM
Post subject:
1. Eurobowl is not organised by the NAF.
2. If you think you can do better please make a bid for 2015.
3. Even though I think it's a horrible idea, who would decide which coaches are "more veteran"?
I think the organizers are doing a great job so far and are just being punished for doing a great job. Getting a venue for more then 600 people in Amsterdam is madness! We'll have to see how managing 460 coaches will go anyway. THIS WILL BE THE LARGEST BB TOURNEY EVER BY A LONG SHOT! Getting in over your head would be a big mistake.
It's too bad you missed out, and I understand that you're upset. But laying the guilt on the NAf and the organisers is shortsighted and egocentric IMO.
Elyoukey - Feb 24, 2011 - 03:56 AM
Post subject:
TuernRedvenom wrote:
I think the organizers are doing a great job so far and are just being punished for doing a great job. Getting a venue for more then 600 people in Amsterdam is madness! .
i think the first question is about here, why Amsterdam, when you know the places will be limited ? probably this will be poped regularly this year, but we heard about other project proposing unlimited places with easy access.
for me the first mistake was to choose Amsterdam, but now it is done.
the random draw was not a good thing, but directelly came from the first decision.
For me it would have been better to select the team according to the number of NAF tournament there members participated in for the last 2 years.
This would have made a "NAF" world cup.
now at the point of today, i think that there will be desistements and probably finally everybody who want and can come will be able to, but it will not be thanks to the first decision.
And in anyway, we can not change things now, so whining and roaming in rage will not bring anything. we just have to live with this incomplete World Cup.
TuernRedvenom - Feb 24, 2011 - 04:10 AM
Post subject:
Elyoukey wrote:
i think the first question is about here, why Amsterdam, when you know the places will be limited ?
WC 2007 was also limited and was not sold out. WC 2011 has 50% extra places. I don't think anyone would have guessed it was going to be so popular.
As to why amsterdam, I can only guess:
* it's in the middle of europe
* it's a big city with many things to see, especially important for those that come from far away and want to make it a full fledged vacation with their family
* it's easy to reach by car, train, ferry and airplane
* if you know the history of NAF tournaments in europe you'd know that amsterdam is a very special place for the tournament circuit
Do you think you would have had 460 coaches from all over the world be interested to come to some little village somewhere in the ardennes for example?
Pako - Feb 24, 2011 - 04:11 AM
Post subject:
Replies.
As Elyoukey said. NAF mistake was to not prospect number of WC players coming. Then to select Amsterdam. Can I do it better? Hope so. I will apply for 2015. This is your answer, "do you!"? I guess a forum is a place to throw opinions and comments. Think NAF forum is different?
@ Darkson. In fact, was a OMM post in which they consider NAF WC I teams to have preference... Should I cite it? No answer about change in their mind...
@ Tuernredvenom. Does it mean that I can organized an invitational, NAF-sanctioned tourney?
About attitude. Please guys, read my previous posts. I'm fine with being out. I don't want to it will be repeated in 2015. I'm pointing out errors (IMO) and placing my thoughts about NAF behaviour. I posted in official thread "Enjoy it for us", and couple of nice memories. What's wrong? I'm saying this that countersign "Wow, well done!"? I said that understand the effort. Many times. I said I not agree with WCII policy. I hope NAF will clarify rules in the future for WCIII WCIV and so on.
First of all I clarified I not agree korgluk first post in the thread.
Not all the things in life is just to say "ok, they tried the best, that's it". Think we can disagree, suggest and discuss. We are adults. Are we?
Darkson - Feb 24, 2011 - 04:15 AM
Post subject:
Pako wrote:
@ Darkson. In fact, was a OMM post in which they consider NAF WC I teams to have preference... Should I cite it? No answer about change in their mind...
Go ahead.
Pako - Feb 24, 2011 - 04:24 AM
Post subject:
Darkson wrote:
Pako wrote:
@ Darkson. In fact, was a OMM post in which they consider NAF WC I teams to have preference... Should I cite it? No answer about change in their mind...
Go ahead.
Here you have 
Pako 25th Jan wrote:
Hello,
Maybe it was already asked, but considering that almost 300 people join the first edition, and I guess we expect a lot more for the second one... is there any consideration to give priority to the teams that joined the first World Cup edition? Or all we just should to be aware to inscribe?
Old_Man_Monkey 7th Mar wrote:
Thanks, Gav, for the question - here hopefully are some answers:
1. to date, I have received three serious bids: two from France, one from Italy
2. I have asked the following NAF members to be part of the evaluation group: LouisX, Longshot, Aramil, Panico, Dutch Dave, and Norse. There will be at least two others added to the group, which also includes our President Lycos and Treasurer-elect Geggster.
3. It could be possible to have an 'early' signing on period for those teams which attended the first WC - there would have to be a stipulation that at least four/five of the original six members are part of the group, but it may be possible.
4. I look to make the choice still at the end of March but should an added week or two become needed, I ask for your patience.
That's it for now - more soon!
OMM
I know not sure was said. On the other hand no news about it after subsequent questions about it. Should I cite again?
Darkson - Feb 24, 2011 - 04:40 AM
Post subject:
Pako wrote:
3. It could be possible to have an 'early' signing on period for those teams which attended the first WC - there would have to be a stipulation that at least four/five of the original six members are part of the group, but it may be possible.
Just to underline the point you so nicely bolded for me - "could" and "may" - not "will".
Panico - Feb 24, 2011 - 05:06 AM
Post subject:
Elyoukey wrote:
TuernRedvenom wrote:
I think the organizers are doing a great job so far and are just being punished for doing a great job. Getting a venue for more then 600 people in Amsterdam is madness! .
i think the first question is about here, why Amsterdam, when you know the places will be limited ?
Quick question.
Everybody since December 2010, so AFTER the assignation to Amsterdam (why Amsterdam? Beacuse of a votation of a committee with no people from the countries involved in the 3 bids) are whining that 400 places were too few
Please somebody tell me why in DECEMBER 2009, ONE YEAR BEFORE, NOBODY criticized this point (number 6 in the list on the linked post)????
http://www.thenaf.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=4790
NOBODY
That means that everybody were fine with a number of 400... or not?
The organizers placed a bid for 400 as requested, and NOBODY says nothing... then they expanded the number to 480 with big efforts.
I think that they are doing great.
I just wanna know why nobody sayd nothing before, and start saying 400 were to few only after!!!
Rodders - Feb 24, 2011 - 05:11 AM
Post subject:
Well said panico
Pako - Feb 24, 2011 - 05:14 AM
Post subject:
WC selection comitee members are still unknown.
WC country applications were never published.
WC venue selection criteria was also never published.
Yes, Panico, NOBODY said anything. Well said...
BTW
Quote:
Hello,
Maybe it was already asked, but considering that almost 300 people join the first edition, and I guess we expect a lot more for the second one..
Rodders - Feb 24, 2011 - 05:56 AM
Post subject:
I would guess the comitee memebrs was along the lins of Prez tounament director and NTO's from USA, Canafda and Austrailia????????/ but i don't know
and 400 for wc2 over 300 for wc1 is alot more...
Just say to yourself if things went more your way would you be so bitter? i doubt it
Darkson - Feb 24, 2011 - 06:13 AM
Post subject:
Rodders wrote:
Just say to yourself if things went more your way would you be so bitter? i doubt it
No need to doubt: http://thenaf.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=5134&highlight=
Pako wrote:
I want to be honest. I don't care about it before, and maybe I don't care about it if I was in WC II.
And while I think having the tourney over 2 locations is a bad decision, I have to applaud the efforts the Dutch guys are putting in. I think a more than 50% increase in numbers from WC1 to WCII (270-ish to 480) is "a lot".
Elyoukey - Feb 24, 2011 - 06:14 AM
Post subject:
Rodders wrote:
and 400 for wc2 over 300 for wc1 is alot more...
Just say to yourself if things went more your way would you be so bitter? i doubt it
i think the point is that the 400 was 'a lot more' but also 'a lot underestimated'
for me it was the naf job to get a correct number (poll, estimations according to the number of naf members inflation etc...). The mistake is around here. But i also know that it is not easy to get this number without having the place where the WC2 would take place.
Also for now the adjustements efforts (whatever hudge they are) are not enough since there are still people not on the boat.
Darkson - Feb 24, 2011 - 06:17 AM
Post subject:
I look forward to EL Prat's 1000-place bid for 2015.
Panico - Feb 24, 2011 - 06:34 AM
Post subject:
Pako wrote:
WC selection comitee members are still unknown.
WC country applications were never published.
WC venue selection criteria was also never published.
Yes, Panico, NOBODY said anything. Well said...
For the third point, you have clear answer in the december 2009 post I linked
I don't know either who were on the committee, but Lycos talk about it in this discussion:
http://www.thenaf.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=4406&start=90
The bidders were stated and it was Amsterdam, Modena and Biarritz
Quote:
Hello,
Maybe it was already asked, but considering that almost 300 people join the first edition, and I guess we expect a lot more for the second one..
No nobody asked that in 2009, so I assume everybody were fine with 400 (50% more than 2007)
Justo to be clear Pako, you know I absolutely have nothing personal and I can imagine the bitter of your mood... but I really don't think is an organization failure! Just this.
Panico - Feb 24, 2011 - 06:37 AM
Post subject:
Elyoukey wrote:
i think the point is that the 400 was 'a lot more' but also 'a lot underestimated'
Fair- Definately correct. It was understimated.
But why saying it now and not in 2009 when the criteria for the bids were published in this same site?
Pako - Feb 24, 2011 - 06:38 AM
Post subject:
Darkson wrote:
I look forward to EL Prat's 1000-place bid for 2015.
Yeah. This is your answer only...
Recheck my posts. I appreciatte job done. Should I cite it again?
But.
Things were do not in the best way. IMO. Can I have one?
Maybe if the information I noted to Panico was given, someone (me or others) can said "Ok, I think [everywhere] is better because of 1000 places". I commented also RAI location in Amsterdam. That was the initial choice. I was there and it is fantastic. More than 1000 players allowed.
Then it was too much expensive. No one gets prices of RAI before Amsterdam application?
That's not the way.
I'm not doubting about Dave, Lucy and others, I'm just saying "PEOPLE ARE OUT. IS IT THE BEST WAY TO DO THINGS OR WE CAN IMPROVE IN THE FUTURE"?
I'm out. I know. I'm right. Disappointed but right.
Things should be done better.
Things were done as better A'dam people can.
But we should do it better. Because of people are out. They don't deserve it. And lot of things can be improved.
Feedback to my comments was just "Do you. try in 2015 yourself" or defensive posts like Panico's (BTW Darkson, all is right with Panico's typing, isn't it?)
It sounds to me that you can only say here:
"WEL DONE!"
Otherwise you will be burned.
Pako - Feb 24, 2011 - 06:47 AM
Post subject:
Panico wrote:
Justo to be clear Pako, you know I absolutely have nothing personal and I can imagine the bitter of your mood... but I really don't think is an organization failure! Just this.
Not me either Luca. I think this is an organization failure. We disagree. That's it. I'm ready to bid El Prat 2015 and for sure I will type a proposal for NAF WC ruleset (oranization and gaming). I hope we will get it and Darkson can come to kiss me 
I have comments about NAF. I have an opinnion. It seems that I am a murderer or a child when I was trying to explain my thoughs about this.
No one of the comments you referred about venue choice or comitee were clarifiying.
Names and charge of comitee. Possible conflicts of interests.
List of applications with characteristics (place, venue, hotels, melas, etc).
Final score (relative importance) of each application.
Not any useful information was given. Give me a break. Highlits of points to consider? This is not I'm asking for.
Maybe sounds in a too much professional way. But you're moving 450 people arround the world. You should do things properly. Info!
Mur - Feb 24, 2011 - 06:54 AM
Post subject:
Darkson wrote:
I look forward to EL Prat's 1000-place bid for 2015.
Needless to say, we are seriously thinking about it..
I don't know who has said this but if we make our bid we'll start to make previsions to:
- a 400-place event
- a 600-place event
- a 800-place event
- a +1000-place event
Bullshit.. this was said by a friend in the spanish forum:
At last ONLY 6 TEAMS OUT! All the draft story to restrict 30 people. Is not possible to find a bigger side event venue?? I can't believe..
All people in please, this should be the most important fact of the NAFWC!!
Geggster - Feb 24, 2011 - 07:04 AM
Post subject:
I think we can all say that if we were one of the few coaches missing out on the largest single BB event ever (almost by a factor of 2) we'd be very disappointed. VERY. So let's not start bandying around terms like bitter, please.
And we can also agree that the logistics of getting nearly 500 coaches together is a monumental task and should be heartily congratulated. Especially considering the effort to get even more going.
I was one of the voters. Every venue has a limit and you can't just expect a committee to run an event for "everyone that wants to come". What if there had been 550 places about but 600 wanted to go. That's a very real possibility for WCIII. You really can't get a handle of numbers 12 months in advance without a ticket price and you can't get a ticket price without knowing numbers. And of course, the bigger the venue, the higher price per ticket as you are well into corporate chequebook territory.
So the question has to be how do you fairly allocate the places? No-one has a right to go to an over-subscribed event (perhaps other than the defending champs). Coaches with no team association could be handicapped but that doesn't seem very fair. Teams with a small number of NAF games could also be handicapped but that's not very fair either.
I know some of the El Prat coaches personally. They are a good team, with a strong league, an auspicious history and are the type you want to catch up with in the bar. They are what the game is all about - and it's a real pity that they (and four other teams too) are going to miss out. Perhaps a team or two might not be able to commit to their place (out of 480, you'd expect a team or 2 to cancel) so maybe, just maybe we might see some of these 5 but let's not lose sight that it's disappointing for all that aren't going and that the organisers have bent over backwards to accommodate as many as possible.
Elyoukey - Feb 24, 2011 - 07:08 AM
Post subject:
Panico wrote:
Elyoukey wrote:
i think the point is that the 400 was 'a lot more' but also 'a lot underestimated'
But why saying it now and not in 2009 when the criteria for the bids were published in this same site?
As stated in my post because we did not have the tools to validate or unvalidate this estimation. And we don't even know if the NAf had them. I would like to think that they did.
Pako's post do resume pretty well how the things could have been done better.
Pako - Feb 24, 2011 - 07:33 AM
Post subject:
Thank you Geggster. I hope this can be discussed logically and in an adult way.
I have my point of view. I think things should be done better. I also think A'dam people did the best. The make a huge effort to rise up team slots. I'm out. That's not fine, but I got it...
Think is that all that stuff noted to me (for sure!) that we should change things.
If someone publish location applications maybe someone could suggest the number of places should be more.
Someone could suggest to perform a players prospection per country in each country forum.
...and so on.
No one did that.
Now, I'm out, and I have no things to do with WC otherwise that try to improve it for 2015. I will bid for 2015 if I get things very important for me (authorities suport, for example). If not, I will give up.
I'm disappointed with the NAF for not took into account these things. I think maybe no one could imagine that but, if so, should be NAF directors and comitee, not me. I don't thing A'dam organizers should took into account if NAF gave them the "OK" to their application.
I guess is fair to discuss about it. Firstly because I am out and I can ponit these things out. Second because I was discussing about it prior to be out. And finally because it will improve WCIII.
I will point out the topics to be consider in future. Discuss it in a thread for WCIII and hopefully change things that I guess NAF is not doing so well.
Can we do that?
Most of replies were about crying, bitter, etc. Ok, mess it up. I know korgluk was dissapointed with all stuff from the very beginning and his way is no proper way to do things, but he is in the worst situation that an enthusiastic BB player could be...
And I still belive people that came WCI should had preferent place. Beside this, we can learn about it or just say "Well done!" and that's it.
Well, I think if someone reamins out, no one organizer (talking from SkullCup organizer point of view) could feel like job is "well done".
Geggster - Feb 24, 2011 - 07:44 AM
Post subject:
I can confirm that there were 18 voters with no coaches from Italy, France or the Netherlands, but otherwise from a wide array of nations. The voting was organised by our President after everyone had had time to view the venue proposals carefully.
If the largest venue had been in Russia, 300 miles from the nearest airport or in the middle of Paris (but extortionate), should that have been the winner? No - that would be crazy. There were many aspects to consider not just size. I know that Paco wants to know all the detail but I don't think that's appropriate at this time.
It's very disappointing that anyone misses out but the process was sound and the venue was selected democratically.
Pako - Feb 24, 2011 - 09:09 AM
Post subject:
I don't want to know the details. Right now, they are useless.
In the future, for WCIII, things like that should be consider. If any NAF chairman wants it, I am thinking about a document to start with in order to discuss future WC, NAF and membership organization.
Things like points to consider beside venue number of players allowed and its relative relevance. Process to select voting comitee and comitee members (publish it after decission is taken to avoid external pressures). Make application characteristics (venue, hotels, extras, etc) public...
I think we will improve it.
Lycos - Feb 24, 2011 - 09:39 AM
Post subject:
Hi Pako,
I can understand that you and others are very disappointed. Of course I can appreciate that. You and I have had the chance to meet, have beers and a great time.... it would be great to see you there in Amsterdam. I think I know or have met most of that El Prat crew.
The First WC had 270 players and we had spare tickets not taken. When it came to plans for WCII we knew we could account for a growth in players in the NAF and game itself, but we also knew that many are feeling the economic effects of the last few years so allowing what is something like 50% increase seemed logical. So we started talking about 300 to 400 players. I don’t recall anyone saying to me this was not enough.
There was a point, we discussed up to 600. However, at that time (mid last year), most people thought this was almost ridiculous. Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing but really, the idea of the 460 now was pretty much off the radar. But we did assess numbers, it was talked about. And one of things we had to consider was by going too big too fast the actual event itself could go badly wrong. There has to be a consideration that we need to ensure the event is as good as we can get it.
So having agreed criteria we asked for “bids†or “proposalsâ€. This was here on the site. Once the bids came in, it was clear we needed a fair and concise way of making the decision. A mass vote would lose control of it, too many voices; it could be distorted too easily. So the answer, fairly logically I would say, is pick a group of people in the game that had all got experience of tournaments and also travelled some distance in doing those events. By this process, the voters would the type who could take into consideration the travelling costs and logistics for players of their part of the world. (note, the voters were split absolutely level, 9 within Europe, 9 Outside from 4 continents. I think 14 or 15 countries so I really gave his some thought). Lastly, no one from the bidding countries so no cries of prejudice or favouritism and I myself did not vote. I gave myself the responsibility of the casting vote if it was level.
The winning bid was Amsterdam by a very clear margin. There was widespread agreement from all those asked to vote, all the bids were very good and I re-iterate my thanks to all three bid teams.
So everything was thought out. Yes there was the chance too many may want to go but we had to make sure we didn’t book a venue that was half full. That would be financial disaster and a risk we cannot take.
And now that we have what is actually just a few percent more than spaces, the only fair way is to give each country a sensible allocation up to a certain point. Then if it came to it, count every one as equals in their country in a random draw. Any other way is, in my opinion, unfair. I think the organising team have got this right and I completely back them on this.
Pako, I know the likes of yourself, Korgluk and others are good guys, supporters of the game and yes, very disappointed. But I can’t see how any other way, that is fair, was possible? When 2015 comes around and the NAF books a 1000 person venue but come the event only 700 turn up ... what then? Staff, food, insurance etc, it’s all booked and paid for. Who is going to find the 300 x €130 so about €40,000!! This is the sort of thing we had to think about.
Having said all this.... some teams may still drop out during the summer.
Lycos - Feb 24, 2011 - 09:45 AM
Post subject:
Pako wrote:
I don't want to know the details. Right now, they are useless.
In the future, for WCIII, things like that should be consider. If any NAF chairman wants it, I am thinking about a document to start with in order to discuss future WC, NAF and membership organization.
Things like points to consider beside venue number of players allowed and its relative relevance. Process to select voting comitee and comitee members (publish it after decission is taken to avoid external pressures). Make application characteristics (venue, hotels, extras, etc) public...
I think we will improve it.
Ah, I was busy typing a reply to you when you posted this. Having said that, all the detail is here on the site already in different threads.
Even though we are eight months from having WC II, I really hope whoever does the next one does improve it. That has to be our aim, to keep improving. I think WCII will be even better than the first, and yes, we will no doubt learn from this one coming.
Joemanji - Feb 24, 2011 - 10:16 AM
Post subject:
Lycos wrote:
But I can’t see how any other way, that is fair, was possible? When 2015 comes around and the NAF books a 1000 person venue but come the event only 700 turn up ... what then? Staff, food, insurance etc, it’s all booked and paid for. Who is going to find the 300 x €130 so about €40,000!! This is the sort of thing we had to think about.
This is the central point. The commitee could not guess exactly how many coaches would want to attend a year in advance. The consequences of guessing too many are far greater than in guessing too few, so that is the route we had to go down. It is rubbish for those who did miss out, but I don't think bankrupting the NAF is a risk worth taking in order to accomodate every possible person who might want to come. A shame, but sensible.
Pako - Feb 24, 2011 - 10:36 AM
Post subject:
I get all your points. This is what I wanted from the very beginning...
Things for me, and thinking about my personal experience and about Barcelona meeting points, is that you can get prices for different number of people.
This is just and estimate cost that meeting place gives to you. I am wrong? For example, Barcelona Fira (http://www.firabcn.es) have different halls ready to use. You can ask for 300, 500, 700 or any rank of participants. They simply gives you the cost. I disagree with the concept "if you ask for, you should invest in".
You also could do a prospection of attendance in each country forum. For sure. maybe understimated, but enough to get a sense that 400 people was too small.
On the other hand, talking about comitee. I'm not saying at all that there is any doubt about decission took. I am not claiming for public vote nor for public candidates info, allowing people to through comments that maybe comitee did not take into account.
Morevoer, I still think that NAF should in any way to take into consideration the members who supported it in the past. Give they a chance to pre-register is fair for me. If "first come, first served" is going to be NAF official policy, let us to join NAF 2015 right now. I was the first ready to join WCII, and finally I am out.
Don't worry about my future place in WCII. Hopefully in summer I will invest money save for WCII in a non-freaky travel. That's it. I'm fine whith this.
I'm tired to be misunderstood. I consider things in the same way since "first come, first served" post was published, many time before we are out.
Deathwing - Feb 24, 2011 - 12:08 PM
Post subject:
Pako: I understand your disappointment. But I fundamentally disagree with you on any kind of preference or priority for some members over others.
I was there way back at the creation of the NAF. I took the first public sign ups at the first NAF tourney and handed out the first dice. I served as UK NTO, then Senior Tournament Organiser (what is effect now Tournament Director), then Vice-President and ultimately President. I spent 4 or 5 years shipping dice for the whole of Europe. I was obviously very heavily involved in the organisation of the first WC (as President at the time of the organisation) but was an ordinary member, volunteer referee and 'results-runner-between-venues' by the time of the event itself.
Here's the point. I don't believe any of the above should matter at all when it comes to a WC place. Fundamentally we are (and rightly should be) all equals as members, whether we've played in 100 tournaments over years or one tournament last week. A NAF member is a NAF member and all should be equal. The day we ever get to 'tiered membership' (based on whatever criteria) will be a sad day indeed.
I cannot disagree strongly enough with the idea that the NAF should be more elitist and less egalitarian.
juergen - Feb 24, 2011 - 03:38 PM
Post subject:
Lycos wrote:
The First WC had 270 players and we had spare tickets not taken. When it came to plans for WCII we knew we could account for a growth in players in the NAF and game itself, but we also knew that many are feeling the economic effects of the last few years so allowing what is something like 50% increase seemed logical. So we started talking about 300 to 400 players. I don’t recall anyone saying to me this was not enough.
IMO I think expecting around 400 players was perfectly reasonable for the bidding process.
Thinking back to Eurobowl in England (Shrewsberry) and Spain (can't remember name) or France this year - if this places like this (where you need to rent a car, is far from bigger cities, need connection flights,...) would have won the bid I suppose that you would have spare tickets left if you have planned for 350 people. When Amsterdam won and it spread the word many people (espacially Europeans) got interested because it is very easy to reach. Austria for example who couldn't bring a Eurobowl team this year, suddently can field 2 teams for world cup - just because of the location.
I think the huge number of coaches suddenly intrested could hardly been forseen and Dave,Lucy and all others did a great job to find extra space to compensate a little. Do I like two venues? - Not really, but even If I was one of the "walkers" between venues at WC I i had a great time there.
Pako - Feb 25, 2011 - 01:33 AM
Post subject:
Deathwing wrote:
Pako: I understand your disappointment. But I fundamentally disagree with you on any kind of preference or priority for some members over others.
For sure, we can disagree. I just pointed out my thoughs, but is NAF work to take decisions. IMO you deserve to have the first place in every NAF WC. You can think that there is not fair, but for me it is. No matter if I will be out as well, I think 7406 NAF members were here before me, so they did something else than me.
The critical point for me is that NAF sent two different messages about WCII joining. I think NAF just should perform a clear, handly document in which all considerations about NAF WC are typed. For sure, you will never cover all the situations, but you should (IMO) clarify important things to already have it clear when problems came.
In addition (and maybe I'm wrong) I have no doubt about the decission for Amsterdam was fair. Is such a good place, and they cover the requirements needed. But. I think that maybe NAF should make different polls in country forums to pulse estimated attendance to WC II. And also to ask for bids to present an "Action Plan" covering different problematic situations.
I think I'm not discovering anything new. Any starting bussiness or project application should have this kind of things.
My though about is, although all people involved (from NAF and WC organization) tried to do their best (and all we appreciatte that, me the first one) it is clear that reality overpassed expectations. That was an error and we should fixed it because I want to be in WCIII, not because I want to be in now.
I don't think I am smarter than no one. I just have some experience as organizer. When SkullCup started to grew up, I performed different considerations to be ready for the possible moment in which space was overpassed. Alternatives, methods of selection and so on.
The most important think is that I am not smarter than no one. So I supposed all those things were take into account. I just trusted in NAF, and somehow something was lost.
That's why I think NAF should start to work about in a more professional way, to avoid those type of problems. Also start to be more open to their members. Because not more about decissions was said. Still, we don't know who decided locations and why. This is not so important but, why this secretism? Is not a good policy at all IMO.
As I said before, from the very beginning. These were my two cents. I hope NAF could consider them. Some of them are very important to clarify that NAF is not a huge bulk of people who pay every year 8€ and forget about what a number of "elite" people is doing. If you want all members equal, people taking decisions should inferm all members:
- Firstable, in real-time communications (whithout need to ask for).
- About comitee membership and criteria to select them (objective criteria, things like "number of tournaments organized", "years playing BB", etc.)
- About money spending and treasury (I couldn't find it, sorry).
- ...
I can suggest some more, but just if someone is going to consider it nor just read and discard.
If we are members of an organization, which claims all are equal, we want information. We are not demanding decission power, just knowledge.
Dani112233 - Feb 25, 2011 - 02:09 AM
Post subject:
i think that Pako is rigth.
this year, everybody knows that participation in WCII was underestimated... ok. let's try to improve things if we can, in order to get a WCIII better, when everybody who wants can play!!
i'm not saying that Pako is rigth in absolutely all that he said, but the principal idea of improve the election system, the way of estimate how many people want assist to the event, and, in rest, everything that could be better done... i think that only can give us profits!! so why can't we talk about improve the WC methods, or the NAF as global??
PD: sorry for my poor english 
Pako - Feb 25, 2011 - 06:28 AM
Post subject:
I think the starting post of this thread was confusing people about my thoughs.
http://www.thenaf.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=5134
Hope we can discuss about improvements on NAF organization and WC III in this thread.
Deathwing - Feb 25, 2011 - 11:50 AM
Post subject:
A point that juergen made is relevant. I believe many more people wanted to attend WCII because of both the location itself and the accessibility. I don't think that either of the other two bids would have drawn as many members.
Which is preferable? An event with 480 coaches and a small percentage unluckily missing out? Or an event with 350-400 where everybody who wants can attend? A location that's going to draw more international teams or a location that is liable to have a greater percentage of national teams?
I cannot understand the worth of 'pre-guaging' interest in attending a future WC before either location or cost is known. For all but the very hard-core who would pay 5000 to play on the moon, it's going to be the first and most important two facts to base a decision on. Where is the value on asking somebody whether they will attend the WC if you don't know where it is or what it costs? Any answer would be meaningless from all but the hard-core. The horse has to go before the cart.
Of course there's lessons to be taken from this WC, both now and doubtless after the event itself. It is obviously a learning process, we really are in unchartered waters again. Perhaps discussions are best left until after the event when emotions are less high and we can all be more rational.
Don't forget that Staff turnover is a huge factor in whatever plans are made for 2015, there will be Tournament Director elections in Spring of 2012 and 2014, Treasurer elections Feb 2012 and 2014 and Presidential elections autumn this year and 2013. A lot could happen between now and 2015. I would suggest that specific questions and points to be raised about the organisation of WCIII are probably best asked of the Presidential candidates running during the autumn 2013 election. Whoever holds Presidential office from autumn 2013 to autumn 2015 will bear the ultimate responsibility for WCIII.
Pako - Feb 28, 2011 - 02:53 AM
Post subject:
Deathwing. You are absolutely right about is better to have a popular location for WC. Saying so, bids for WCII were receipt arround January 2010 (posted here). Decission was taken August 2010 (and many people demanded news about it a number of times).
I think was NAF fault to not decide the venue earlier. Reading the posts of "World Cup II?" thread someone can find a gap between Jan2010 and Aug2010. Eight months. I think decission should be taken arround march, giving Organization time to prospect attendance and to change venue if necessary. A'dam people done a great job improving WC in two months. But we could do it better if timing was enhanced.
I agree also that we are in a learning process. Unfortunately, I have no other job related to WC than think about 2015. This time I just trusted in NAF and they fail me (I guess no one can doubt it if I am out, even if finally all we can attend, this is not an optimal situation), so I don't want to ear just "well done!" comments. For sure, I decided to be more proactive for 2015 than 2011, because some things should clearly be improved.
If bidding process should end two years before WC, you have time to prospect (knowing final venue), time for improve, and also for change allocation if necessary.
One of my key points related to that is, even do NAF was doing things with their best ideas, more people than me felt that WCII process was too much unprofessional. Although very qualified people were taking decissions, seems that those decissions were taking most of times too late. We had no enough info and also it seems that bids did not present such accurate informs of the venue.
I think (and maybe I'm wrong, but no clues from NAF came) that all WCII process was made in a "very friendly" but not professional way. Talking about the biggest BB event, involving transcontinental travels and big amount of money, it seems we should take NAF WC in a more serious way.
Finally, I disagree with NAF staff point. I think NAF WC should be organized from the very beginning, not from the last 2 years before tournament date. By this way, you will have again a reduced timing to proper organize the tournament. I think NAF WC stuff should overpass elections and who is NAF prez or whatever. Because of that I think critical points should be adressed in an "official" document ready to be followed every NAF WC. Timing, requirements, etc very well defined in a "WC handbook".
generaljason - Mar 14, 2011 - 07:14 AM
Post subject:
Less than 48 left for the pre-reg deadline and 12 spots are still in black on the Registration page. I read some posts that half of these are already paid but not received yet or updated, so there might still be a chance for El Prat to play after all. Cross your fingers Pako - 78 teams, 468 coaches somebody is bound to bow out. Next few days will be interesting....
Hope to see you on the other side of the pitch in 8 months. 
sann0638 - Mar 15, 2011 - 08:41 AM
Post subject:
There are still some individual spaces:
http://thenaf.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=5152&highlight=&sid=70a43a7868dbd872f05e27ec2fc4d29a
Nonio - Mar 28, 2011 - 04:02 AM
Post subject:
LBN must play...
Pako - Apr 04, 2011 - 03:43 AM
Post subject:
Thank you all guys. It seems that will not be an option for us. Anycase, appreciatte your support.
We decided to move as a team. This is our spirit. So hope the individuals get all the players whithout us...
Tiamo69 - Apr 06, 2011 - 06:21 AM
Post subject:
Pako wrote:
Thank you all guys. It seems that will not be an option for us. Anycase, appreciatte your support.
We decided to move as a team. This is our spirit. So hope the individuals get all the players whithout us...
i've just read this thread today & am surprised, considering how passionate the players concerned were over attending, that it took until March the 14th before anyone even mentioned the 'Individual Teams'.
I registered as an Individual back in December & i think i was the 12th registration. Being a pessimist, I've watched the World Cup II thread avidly since then, fully expecting to NOT make the cut...
But i am going & at least a 1/3 of the members of these 2 teams have been allocated their slots since this grievance was first vented!
i don't know the individuals concerned & can understand you wanting to play as a team...
however, if you really wanted to attend WCII you could all have expressed interest as individuals & ended up with practically a full team this way...
lots of individual applicants have dropped out, as they took over spare slots that became vacant in teams which were successful & others have come forward to fill their slots.
Don't get me wrong, i think the Individual Teams should be Individual Teams & not hijacked by others but you haven't actually been denied the opportunity of playing in the WCII which seems to be your argument.
You could have played as Individuals (& potentially together).
You've only been denied playing WCII as a Team.
Tiamo69 - Apr 06, 2011 - 06:53 AM
Post subject:
Observations on this whole thread:
Numbers:
i think 400 was a very realistic target considering the factors...
1) WCI was actually undersubscribed
2) At time of planning, there was a little thing going around the world called a 'Global Recession', with many people not knowing if they'd have work within a month, let alone whether or not they could afford to attend a BB tournament in 12-18 months time!
3) when booking any event, the first thing you need to estimate is numbers & the higher your numbers estimation is, the earlier you have to book to (a) secure a venue & (b) potentially benefit from any negotiated discounts.
How many tournaments are run & turn out to be under subscribed or, have the right numbers but don't receive payment of the majority of particpants until the week before or sometimes 'on the day'...
The NAF certainly can't run a WC this way, not unless we want to see them bankrupt themselves!
the fact that the bid process was voted on by experienced organisers from all over the world & that neither the President nor the Countries concerned were allowed an active part in this process, proves that NAF, as an organisation, treated this whole process seriously & wanted the final decision to be as objective as possible.
I can certainly understand the passion behind some of the points raised here but you have to try & be objective & detach your personal feelings, when looking at the big picture.
NAF bids went out to run a 400-odd WC tournament & Amsterdam were the successful bidders.
I think the fact that the Organisers have surpassed their remit by actually organising a 480 player tournament should be applauded, not criticised!
As with everything in life, there are winners & losers, the main thing is that we learn & move on; hopefully WCIII will see around 600 people travelling to it & we'll see more teams come from further away, with new countries included too.
These new countries / teams / players will end up pushing some of the existing 'veteran' teams / players out of WCIII & so, we'll have disgruntled players angrily criticising the WCIII committee in the future...
But, this is is the 'right way' to do things...
we need to bring New Blood into the game, we need new Coaches to start up new leagues. My own small club in Burton on Trent has gone from sending 1 individual member to the BB GT to sending 8 Coaches to the NAF Champs in one year!
Euro Bowl by it's rules / objectives etc is slighlty exclusive & almost by invite only. My only chance of ever making an appearance at Euro Bowl is if 'Team Wales' do go & i get into their team, by way of some 'dodgy' 3rd-4th generation Welsh heritage! However, the Welsh players are getting more organised, so that's highly unlikely too...
I wanted to play at WCII ever since i 1st heard about WCI, 3-4 years ago, when i was rediscovering Blood Bowl after a 10+ year exile. The fact that i'm going proves the system does work.
My only criticism regarding the whole team selection is checks should have been made to ensure that Team Members were 'paid up' members of NAF before December 2010 (at the latest)...
From seeing comments in the World Cup threads, i'd place a safe wager on the fact that some WCII participants have only 'physically' joined the NAF (or renewed their membership) after the 1st of December 2010...???
If correct, then that is something that needs to be changed before WCIII!
Tiamo69 - Apr 06, 2011 - 06:58 AM
Post subject:
one last little observation...
how come you claim to be an active NAF member & yet, only ever make 5 posts on the Official NAF Forum since 2005...
with your 5th post being such an extended outburst against the way the WCII has been organised...?
Joined: Jul 09, 2005
El Prat de Llobregat
Posts: 5
Location: El Prat de Llobregat
Status: Offline
is it safe to assume then, that the originator of this thread didn't participate in the pre decision Forum discussions on this very subject...?
smeborg - Apr 06, 2011 - 05:50 PM
Post subject:
I support the process that has been gone through by the NAF as being thorough, fair and well managed. I share the pain of those who have not secured tickets (but I regard my own ticket as a bonus rather than a right). As has been pointed out by others, the alternative to having too few places is financial risk. A couple of suggestions:
(For WC2 and WC3): Have a clear mechanism so that teams and individuals that have not secured a ticket can replace dropouts (i.e. a ranking order for those in the queue, perhaps simply first come first served) . Reward dropouts (teams and individuals) who tell the NAF before the tournament itself. Time consuming, I know, but possible if one organiser is dedicated to this function, I suggest.
(For WC3): Financial risk is tricky for unincorporated associations such as the NAF. Accordingly, consider having a small number of wealthier NAF members underwrite limited amounts of risk on a volunteer basis (e.g. 5,000 euros each). This might help bid for a space large enough to accommodate all comers (at no risk to the NAF, just to those members). I would be prepared to do this myself, knowing that I might not see the money again.
Hope that helps.
Pako - Jun 23, 2011 - 07:29 AM
Post subject:
Hello all.
Just to note that today, five months before NAF WC II some (if not, many) teams here in Spain had at least one member out WC due to different reasons.
I don't know the numbers, I am just waiting for the final member composition of the spanish (and other) teams to make a comparsion between WCI and II. In terms of proportion, BTW.
My sense is that after a successful NAF WCI many people wanted to come, no matter how. This was a reason (IMO) to add of the final oversubscription.
Again, NAF WC organizers did not care about to not adulterate this process (in which people who was not pre-registered is entering now when other pre-registered players are still out). This is another issue to add to a general lack of organization and prevision.
For example:
Giving to the teams the rule that they cannot change more than one registered player. Those teams being pushed down in the registration list. This would make people just registering like crazy if they were making a real team or not, in fact reducing the oversuscription and (probably) giving us the chance to enter in the WCII. To date, I have notice of at least 5 spanish players offering their place.
Second. Giving the teams the rule that any missing player should be reported to organization, giving the organizers the chance to refill teams or join incomplete teams to free slots for teams in the waiting list.
As mentioned above, LBN team wants to play as a team. We join in 1999 and we played many tourneys together. It is simply unfair that people organized teams two weeks before pre-registration (some of them finally with players not coming).
That's why we did not enter in these bussiness. But think about if we started to move along spanish teams maybe we could have a entire team slot for us finally.
It is a pitty that lack of WCII organization make this more difficult. As I mentioned before, probably organizers are very nice people, and there is no doubt that they try to solve problems and improve the WC. But it is also true that many things were simply forget. Things that should be considered when you are organizing the NAF WC. Specially taking into account the massive attendance.
There was no control from the NAF statement other than Amsterdam is a nice place, and 400 people space; nor a clear project from NAF organization. This is just the last mistake (one that was noted before, citations are aviable if you want). I told you that LBN could pre-register 6 different teams no matter the players to improve our chances to go in. This was just an overestimation but, for sure, many teams included "not-so-sure-to-come" players just to fill the team and enter in the lottery.
Instead of pay attention to suggestions, criticisms or comments, you just decided to forget about us because our position was not simply "well done, you handsome guys".
Data is there. Let's see how many of the players pre-registered finally play, and the comparsion with WCI in %. And tell me that it shouldn't be improve.
Grumbledook - Jun 23, 2011 - 08:55 AM
Post subject:
I don't think anyone is saying things can't have been better or that there is nothing to improve. It is a shame some people are missing out and its clear some things need looking at for the next one if it happens.
Pako - Jun 23, 2011 - 09:32 AM
Post subject:
The real shame it that things like this were pointed out in a time in that the organization or NAF could fixed it. No one spent five minutes thinking about it suitability... or worse, someone spent those five minutes and decide this was not a problem. I guess it is. But let the time pass through and consider it.
My personal shame is to not have NAF WC II due to things that could be done in the right way if people in charge took some extra time to consider it. Alternatively, to pay attention on us.
I told them. Others told them. That's the shame. And it happened more than once this WC...
I am not buried. As I said, we had the chance to fill some teams but definetly it will turn NAF WC in a joke for us, playing sepparately in 4-5 teams that did not take the responsability to fill their roster properly, just thinking in a place for WC and thinking about later.
I am not angry, or buried. Just tired about all this stuff. Disappointed, very disappointed with this way to do things.
On the other hand, a team maintained over 10 years is out, or forced to be hired in pieces by the people that let us out... :S
Grumbledook - Jun 23, 2011 - 11:46 AM
Post subject:
have you asked these other teams if they will swap around so you can be on one team? I suspect they may also be teams of players that have known each other for a long time though
I'm sympathetic to what's happened though I don't recall reading much about warnings before the location was announced and the capacity limits. The only time this stuff was mentioned was after it had been picked and then we saw the sheer number of ppl who put their names forward to go.
Darkson - Jun 23, 2011 - 02:43 PM
Post subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByUOFV5TusE
Yeah, I'm sure that all those people that signed up new EXACTLY what the future held for them 12 months down the line. Redundancy, new children/families, emergencies, etc, etc, etc. No, of course it was none of these things, it was all just a conspiracy to keep you and LBN out.
Stop talking such utter shite.
People have to drop out - it happens. It happens at normal tourneys, it happens at the NAFC, it happened at WCI, and everyone knew it was going to happen at WCII. Trying to use it as yet another to blame the organisers for is, frankly, another sign of your bitterness.
Get over yourself, and if you think you can do it better, stop using the time to continue your whining, and get a bid sorted for 2015 for 1000+ people.
longfang - Jun 23, 2011 - 03:48 PM
Post subject:
She's hot! Or was hot!
Pako, have you mailed the organisers, spoken with the Spanish NTO. I don't think your doing yourself any favour by pursuing this on forum and you might actually get issues resolved if you go with private mail.
Pako - Jun 27, 2011 - 02:02 AM
Post subject:
I am just pointing out organization failures. This is my personal opinion and could be taken intyo account or not. But these issues should be at least consider.
Yuo're right, these considerations should be done after venue publication and oversubscription. IMO organization failed again not assuring that people preregistered could come before others filling teams. You could do it in response to oversuscription. Action, and re-action. To assure fairness.
And not. Here in Sapin many of these teams asked us to fill free slots. The thing is maybe those teams did extra effort to build a 100% commited team if organization penalised the team member changes. Maybe instead of 14 spanish teams we had 13 and we all come to A'dam.
Longfang. After NAF and organization ignore in practice all my suggestions and posts (some of them finally demonstrated to be usefull) my only way to do is post it public to get the community the chance to think about, and support this (or not) but at least consider it. I don't pretend to change all NAF points of view nor the rules of NAF WC. But certainly there are some fields to improve and discuss or NAF WCIII will have the same problems but worse than WC II.
I guess the idea to penalise teams that pre-suscribed with any player no matter who to get place, and afterwards built the team is simply fair.
Darkson - Jun 27, 2011 - 08:22 AM
Post subject:
Pako wrote:
I guess the idea to penalise teams that pre-suscribed with any player no matter who to get place, and afterwards built the team is simply fair.
No, it's BS.
So you want to penalise teams that have players drop out? Your wife/other half finds she's expecting around that date, and decides she really doesn't want you hundreds of miles away. You, and a couple of team-mates get made redundant and have to drop out (given the state of the Spanish economy, a possibility...). God forbid, but your partner dies, and you're left bringing up the kids alone.
And you want to punish people for that?
Again, what utter shite.
Let's have a round of applause for the "wah, wah, wah, me, me, me" generation.
Pako - Jun 27, 2011 - 09:09 AM
Post subject:
Get it simple:
1- One drop out is assumed to be possible. More than one? We are talking of the 33% of your team...
2- If your team will be penalised, and your wife is pregnant(and you know it at least 7 months before), just think twice before join a tourney in that important date. As probably you should do without the penalization.
3- If someone in your family dies, probably you will not care about BB.
Let's go Darkson:
Quote:
Get over yourself, and if you think you can do it better, stop using the time to continue your whining, and get a bid sorted for 2015 for 1000+ people
It means that if your bank is not doing things properly in your oppinion, you simply run a new bank by yourself.
If you dislike the work of the people who is reforming your house, you just do yourself, no matter if you should change the roof, the electric stuff or whatever.
Isn't it?
My god. Grow up, man. What a sucking argument.
Darkson - Jun 27, 2011 - 10:31 AM
Post subject:
Pako wrote:
2- If your team will be penalised, and your wife is pregnant(and you know it at least 7 months before), just think twice before join a tourney in that important date. As probably you should do without the penalization.
And that shows you're not even thinking it through. The tourney is November next year - that means that people can still drop out for pregnancy, jobs, deaths etc, etc etc, and they've had 6 months (or so) for these things to effect them already.
Can you honestly say you know what life is going to throw at you for the next 16 months? Since I signed up, and after booking the time off work, I've unexpectedly changed job, and almost had to forfeit my place on the team - it happens, and penalising those that have friends that have to drop out for whatever reason is, frankly, bollocks.
Get over yourself.
Pako - Jun 28, 2011 - 02:42 AM
Post subject:
Darkson. Pre-registration started December 22th. 11 months before the tourney, not 16. Preregistration payment ended 22th February. So 9 months before the tourney.
There are not so much personal changes that will not allow you to come. Certainly, not many of this changes occurs to two out 6 persons in a year. Change of job, for example, is accompained by new vacation schedule and free days, so it is not a major problem in 90% of cases. Marriage of a friend is known more than 9 months before the wedding...
My point is:
1- Two personal crisis in a team of six people is very improbable. Specially concentrated in a particular weekend.
2- Most of the cases, the problem is not an unpredictable crisis. Is just a question of change of personal priorities or bad organization.
I don't know what is your experience in tourneys, but I guess most of the tournament organizers could agree with these two points.
Assuming one critical situation by team, is very rare that any team would be penalised (you need two unstoppable crisis to be penalised). On the other hand, such a strict regulation could avoid the "pre-register first, think later", which is the present case in this moment.
Do you think that the six persons that I know (and most others from other countries) that finally did not come is because a dead in the family (they know it right now? Wow...) a children coming (Wow again, such a warseer... ) or whatever comparable? Or just a change in their mind, or a bad prevision of costs?
In my mind, the possible damage to teams built in the right way, with concerned people, will be minimal compared with the avoiding of people just registering themselves and changing their mind for other, non critical reasons.
What is a critial reason? For sure it depends on everyone's mind. But someone who leaves the tourney five months before (and sometimes earlier) could think about it 9 months before for sure in 90% of cases. "I don't have enough money", "my girlfriend don't want to have me in Amsterdam playing figurines" or "I've registered just to give my team a chance" are arguments heard.
Give me a break.
And about the "me me me wah wah wah" generation. I guess you should shut up and get a little bit of respect. Maybe you don't agree with me in my personal oppinions. But I'ved tournament organizer for more than six years and league owner for more than twelve. And I noted that otherwise you finely define the rules of your tournament/league, things will go mad. I guess this is the case in WC and I do belive we could do it better (all us). I also think that we need to do it better next time, or little mistakes will become big crisis in the future.
I think disagree and discussion is always positive. Your position is not. Just agree and clap because Amsterdam people are doing their best is not helping anything. Although I am from the "me me me wah wah wah" generation I took this in a more adult way than you. That's it.
Someone who feel offended because his job is subjected to criticism is certainly someone who is not an adult. My professional job is subjected to criticism every day. Additionally, my hobbies (painting, Bloodbowl, Warhammer) are subjected to external oppinions every time I played. Moreover, my tournament and league decissions were and are subjected to criticism and they are welcome.
Otherwise, I will never improve our league nor our tourneys.
You can think this is bitternes, or whatever you want. From my point of view if something could be improved, is our right to say it clear. "Mistake" is not an insult, and I think you should revise your self-esteem. Because for me, someone noting a mistake (or a possible) mistake I did is not a problem, is an opportunity to get better.
I am not going to NAF WC. That's it. And I am not getting nothing more than suggest improvements to get a better WCIII. I am supporting my oppinions with data and considerations that I already have. I had the opportunity to fill some teams here, and I refused. So stop messing about my personal situation.
From my point of view, it was a lack of organization in the present WC. And I think this is not an insult to no one, because organization demonstrated their commitement to solve problems. Even do they did this, I guess we could expect more from NAF and WC organization. That's it.
As I said, the answer is not "go, do it yourself". For me the answer is "hey, I think this is not working fine". And discuss if it certainly is or not. And how improve it.
I am considering many things, from my personal, tournament organizer point of view. I did it before the oversuscription, one year before. I don't change my points of view just to be out. Take a look in my posts if you want. However, I was suffering your personal attacks since the beginning just because I don't agree with WC stuff.
I am a 30 year old biochemistrier. PhD and researcher. I played since 2005 more tourneys than you since 2003 and organized SkullCup (running with up to 90 players) six times, Random Rampage! four times and Winterbowl twice. I helped my friends to organize Tabira Bowl, OpenFEBL and some others. I am one of the owners of LBN league. You can ask spanish poeple how it works.
I am saying so to note you I am not a crying children. And I am expressing my oppinions in a polite, reason-supported way. You can agree or not. NAF could pay attention or not. But I assure you that spanish community is not happy with how the things were performed, even do I am the only one tha waste his time noting it.
If I want to go through my bitterness, I just need to wait and see how next WC will simply explode when rules set up this year will be absolutely overcomed.
Darkson - Jun 29, 2011 - 01:58 AM
Post subject:
Pako wrote:
Darkson. Pre-registration started December 22th. 11 months before the tourney, not 16. Preregistration payment ended 22th February. So 9 months before the tourney.
Really not sure where the 18 months came from - maybe I shouldn't read my new contract before I post...
[brain fart!!!]
Quote:
There are not so much personal changes that will not allow you to come. Certainly, not many of this changes occurs to two out 6 persons in a year. Change of job, for example, is accompained by new vacation schedule and free days, so it is not a major problem in 90% of cases. Marriage of a friend is known more than 9 months before the wedding...
Maybe employers are more lenient in Spain - I've had to swap days off and work shifts for people because I couldn't have that weekend as holiday, because others had already booked it.
And yes, most marriages are known about more thn 9 moths in advance, but not all - I had a family weeding a couple of years ago with 2 months notice, which I would have had no chance of missing just for "a stupid game" - do you really want to penalise others if this happens to one (or two or three) of their team-mates?
No-one, absolutely NO-ONE can say what's going to happen to them next week, let alone 3, 6 or 9 moths down the road, and anyone that claims they can is lying. Stuff happens unexpectedly.
Let's take my team. Let's say the company my wife works for goes bust in September, and my wife's out of work - I'd have to drop out. Let's say the partner of another player announces she's expecting their first child in December, so a) to be close and b) for cost they have to drop out - explain why that would be fair to penalise the other 4 players?
I'm glad to see you admit it's all because you're bitter though.
Pako - Jun 29, 2011 - 04:50 AM
Post subject:
Darkson wrote:
I'm glad to see you admit it's all because you're bitter though.
Please, start with easier lectures prior to enter in an adult discussion. Certainly, you couldn't understand my posts.
I can suggest some:
generaljason - Jun 29, 2011 - 05:53 AM
Post subject:
Simon - I know what it's like to feel compelled to answer this but please remember that Trolls regenerate on a 4+.
Andre - is there any way we can set-up some double-decker tables at WCII so this effen guy can play already? Christ I'm sick of reading this $hit.
Grumbledook - Jun 29, 2011 - 06:30 AM
Post subject:
chill out guys, it is only a game...
Pako - Jun 30, 2011 - 02:01 AM
Post subject:
I'm fine. It is only that I really don't know if Darkson did not understand my posts or it is simply answering that he wants. As this man is turning 180º my sentences.
Apologize if someone is offended. I am just trying to get this with a little bit of humor.
And BTW, next WC I will pre-register at least four teams, using nicknames of all the NAF LBN members no matter if they will come or not. Then if any of them is selected, I just need to change the names of the original members for the 6 members that really wanted to come...
...that's it, forget about me, I am certainly a troll...
Pako - Jun 30, 2011 - 02:10 AM
Post subject:
generaljason wrote:
Is there any way we can set-up some double-decker tables at WCII so this effen guy can play already? Christ I'm sick of reading this $hit.
I don't know if you read properly this $hit. I already had the chance to come if I want. Filling some teams here in Spain.
So please, let the stupid argument that I am out to not pay attention to the suggestions. Anycase, I will pay for the dice and forget about THIS $hit. The only thing I really want to did is to make this subscription of many teams to get the place and demonstrate this $hit rules to organize WC... Unfortunately, I prefered to try to improve it than to get profit on them.
Sebco - Jun 30, 2011 - 12:14 PM
Post subject:
I understand and agree with some of your arguments, Pako, but I think it's really really difficult to create an election system with no flaws. The main problem for this WC is that there were more people wanting to come than seats in the tournament place. Organizers improved that, they did their best but they didn't manage to give a seat to every coach who wanted to come. So, yes, that's a pity and, yes, it would be very very better if we could avoid this problem for WC III.
But that's all in my humble opinion. All the other "mistakes" that you underline in your posts are details for me. If there's a room for every one wanting to come, there's no need to squabble about who is chosen, why, how, etc...
Pako - Jul 01, 2011 - 01:37 AM
Post subject:
I know some of this issues could be taken as details in the present WC. But from my experience as organizer, this minimal inconvenients could turn into a crisis in the future.
This WC finally is a little oversuscribed. But do you really think no one is going to get profit on rule lacking next time if this issues are not adressed properly?
This is my example, and as I said, I prefered to note this than get profit on it. But with the present rules, I could do two things:
1- Presuscribe people who is not already in the NAF.
2- Change the members of the team without any limitation.
Forcing the example, I could register different teams as follows:
LBN nº1
My father NAF nº none
My brother NAF nº none
My sister NAF nº none
My unlce NAF nº none
A friend of my brother NAF nº none
Me NAF Nº 7407
LBN nº2
Potablava
Eolallo
Johan_Peligro
Dr.Lizard
Sandokan
Jow Pow
etc.
No matter if they are NAF members, or even if they play BB ever. No matter if they could or want to come the WC. I just can register 3, 4, 5 teams to get a better chance to come. If finally one of my teams is chosen, I just need to change the real players for the fake ones.
I did not want to screw up WC. No matter what Darkson or whoever think about, I am just trying to get it better, and trying to solve "problems" that I think there are present.
Maybe this example is forced. But do you really thing no one in BB community could do this?
Moreover, and this is my main criticism to NAF and WC organization. Create rules or modify the ruleset after the problems emerge gave the image of lack of interest and organization. I agree some of them could not be imagine, but some other in fact could be. Some of them were noted and ingored, this is another one. Organizers of any event have the responsability to think, to play de devil's role in order to test the event resistance to circumstancies, cheating, etc.
I guess we need to think about this type of possible problems to have a clean, clear and robust method to set up NAF WC.
As I said, from my own experience, some players tend to use this gaps in the rulesets. I guess all you agree with this. My oppinion is that we should fill as main gaps as possible in order to avoid future problems, because NAF WC seems to be growing, and little holes could become big ones when the tourney expand.
Grumbledook - Jul 01, 2011 - 10:49 AM
Post subject:
You make some good points but you seem to always make them about how you have been wronged by them, rather than from a more critical unbiased stand point.
If you presented them as you did in that last post rather than in the tone some of your previous ones it would help. A lot of them have come across as you moaning about them rather than just trying to be constructive on how things could be improved next time.
While I'm well aware that English isn't your first language (though you seem to have a very good grasp on it) others on here seem to be a bit less forgiving to how you are coming across.
It is clear to everyone there is room for improvement, though the timing right now isn't the most constructive. I think you would be better served dropping this for now and bringing up the points after the WC has finished at the earliest. It will be 4 years at least until the next one so it wouldn't even hurt to wait 2 years before raising the points. I'm sure whoever is NAF President / Tournament Director at the time of arranging the next one will ask for feedback nearer the time of the initial steps towards organising the NAF WC III. I think you can see that some people are getting a bit annoyed about how you are going on and on about it and you keep repeating the same points. So while they are points that I do agree with, I don't think currently is best time to keep going on about them.
JaM - Jul 01, 2011 - 12:34 PM
Post subject:
An absolute +1.
Big words from the little man, and so true.
generaljason - Jul 02, 2011 - 08:54 AM
Post subject:
Pako wrote:
generaljason wrote:
Is there any way we can set-up some double-decker tables at WCII so this effen guy can play already? Christ I'm sick of reading this $hit.
I don't know if you read properly this $hit. I already had the chance to come if I want. Filling some teams here in Spain.
So please, let the stupid argument that I am out to not pay attention to the suggestions. Anycase, I will pay for the dice and forget about THIS $hit. The only thing I really want to did is to make this subscription of many teams to get the place and demonstrate this $hit rules to organize WC... Unfortunately, I prefered to try to improve it than to get profit on them.
Jon pretty much summed up most of my objections to your posts, but mine more specifically are that from the very beginning when pre-reg was finished, and after the joint they rented had reached capacity, and after realizing that your team wasn't going to go (not just you - I realize that you individually could have went but that's not the point), you've spanned over 3 different threads on this site about how this was done so poorly.
I appreciate that you've run large tournaments yourself so you should also be able to appreciate this - the work involved in coordinating a tournament of this size - 480 coaches, largest ever, and taking on all that unpaid stress is enormous. Having a guy piss all over it when it hasn't even started yet has got to be distressing or annoying to say the least.
The only guy you should be apologizing to is Andre. Bless this man for agreeing to organize and sit out for 3 days for the betterment of half a thousand people. Constructive criticism is helpful, but 3 threads, one long winded post after the other, spewing back seat blather would be annoying to any tournament organizer.
Seriously dude your ruining my mellow. I totally want to play against you right now with Dwarves with 9 Dirty Players. I am sorry that your team didn't get to go this year, but it could still happen: 6 months is a long time. Sincerely hope to see you on the other side of the pitch.
Respectfully,
Gj.
Pako - Jul 04, 2011 - 02:04 AM
Post subject:
I gave up to come many months ago. Sincerely, I am too much tired to come even if I have the chance.
All you are right. Unfortunately, my only work related to WC right now is to note weakness. For sure I was not so polite expressing myself, and this was absolutely my fault.
Indeed, note that is also very annoying to heard about how I am bitter because my team is out every time I posted, when most of my criticisms were made before the lottery.
Sorry for all. As said, here you had my 50 cents (or 500 cents).
For sure, I can kick the ass of your dwarves with 9 Dirty Player just with my star goblin Diego Armando Metadona
Joemanji - Jul 08, 2011 - 01:08 AM
Post subject:
Is he still going? Geez.
Grumbledook - Jul 08, 2011 - 04:14 AM
Post subject:
No, but thanks for your insightful and helpful post ;]