195 replies to this topic

[sWhiteboy]

There wasn't a cut at the MI SC?

[agktmte]

They didn't want to use last names for privacy purposes.

I formatted with first name, last initial. Would have been quite helpful I think, especially for those without an online presence that play in multiple tournaments. It's fine if an individual wants to remove their info, but I did think it was lame that someone came through and cleared all of that info for every player in the tournament (I think I had matched a player to a deck for all 23 participants, but at least 20 of them were entered). Not too big of a deal, all the people who are on the forums have their handles entered so that's still there at least. But it would have been nice to be able to easily track how players do at multiple tournaments in each region (like the winner of Springfield's SC, Brett V., who was at the Tulsa tournament as well; which deck did he play in Tulsa? how well did he do? no way to find out now without tracking him down and asking).

I guess it really comes down to whether or not we think there is any merit to recording individual players or if we just want to collect data regarding deck popularity and success (in which case there is no need to record the player at all).

[istaril]

First - wow! I'm gone 2 days and I come back to have 6 tournaments added without prompting. This is awseome. I probably won't have time to update the meta-data till tomorrow, but I'll post once it's up!

As for the name information: I wasn't originally planning on using this to track player information - player information (name) was being entered primarily so that if multiple people were trying to piece together tournament info, they'd have another reference to jog their memories.

The first reason for this is that the information didn't seem particularly valuable from a 'informing the global meta' perspective, and is more likely to be used for good old-fashioned chest-beating or degrading someone for poor performance. I really don't want the the Annals to become a 'wall of shame', or for anyone to have any incentive not to report a tourney.

Admitedly, the information *would* serve for identifying the best player, and could help Scantrell's ELO system, it's also just cut information (for pairings). I feel the benefits gained by having player names posted are outweighed by the negatives.

I certainly do have privacy concerns as well, as the people whose names are listed have not consented to have that information posted. I think a "FirstName LastInitial" format provides at least some anonimity, but even then I'm not entirely comfortable with it.

I'm willing to reconsider my approach if the community feels strongly otherwise.

[agktmte]

I just think a decision should be made and then implemented. If we don't do player names, then we should have them removed from every tournament data sheet. If we do want to use player names, we should decide how to provide that, first name only, first name with last initial, full name, online handles only, etc. I think it shouldn't take too long to reach a consensus about it. Right now it seems like online handles only is a fair approach, but that does keep a number of players from having their information recorded (which may or may not be a bad thing).

[agktmte]

Alternatively, we could try to get this information only for those making the cut, which would eliminate the wall of shame concern.

Also, as far as Store Championships go, those are official FFG tournaments, so isn't there some expectation of losing anonymity by participating in an official tournament for a game? They have to fill out the decklists and everything right?

[sWhiteboy]

I'm not sure why we need to come to a consensus or anything really. Just post the player names/handles as you see fit. If someone doesn't want to be included, then they can remove their name, or ask not to be added in the first place. I think either first name or first name and last initial is fine, but I doubt anonymity matters. I mean, last year the entire first and last name of every player at Gencon was posted, and it probably happened again at world's too. It's part of playing a game in an era where the internet exists.

[JohnyNFullEffect]

There wasn't a cut at the MI SC?

No. There were a lot less competitive people there so they just kept it best Swiss record. I wish they would have but that's ok. We have another SC in a week so we'll do it then.

[Cevyr]

Updated with the information from Portland Oregon SC.

[agktmte]

I'm not sure why we need to come to a consensus or anything really. Just post the player names/handles as you see fit. If someone doesn't want to be included, then they can remove their name, or ask not to be added in the first place. I think either first name or first name and last initial is fine, but I doubt anonymity matters. I mean, last year the entire first and last name of every player at Gencon was posted, and it probably happened again at world's too. It's part of playing a game in an era where the internet exists.

That's what was happening, but someone decided to delete all that info (for all the players) in the tournament data I added (presumably another participant, which is fine if they take off their own name as suggested above). That's why I say that in general we need to make a decision about whether to keep that information or not. We can't just add as we see fit if other people are going around deleting it all as they see fit.

[istaril]

I'll definitely make a decision on this before the next sheet (for the next FAQ) launches. I'm currently leaning towards cut-only names, or no names at all. I still feel like the more I ask people to submit (the more blank spaces there are), the more daunting the process of data entry comes, the less data I get.

I also don't feel that data is all that valuable to the community as a whole...

If I could turn this into a tourney-running sheet as well (that did your pairings, then exported them to the sheet), I could see it as labour saving and warrant the additional info.

[Bomb]

I think the way it's currently being entered is fine. I want to see who might have been participating in tournaments for my own interest. If I don't know who they are, then no problem... but it's nice to see who is participating in the field as it also helps add some identity to what decks are considered worthy of being played or not. Sometimes it's not only the results that tell us everything.

For example, if we see Corey F. fielding Lannister PBtT, then it gives that deck type additional credibility because a renown player thinks it has potential to win a tournament. I don't think we need to apply names for statistical purposes if it's something we can at least see for our own reference.

[mdc273]

Personally I just need identifying information. It doesn't matter what it is. Anon19385665984 is better than nothing for me, but it's not by much. For ELO to work (I wasn't aware Scantrell was doing anything) you need to be able to grab both player's ELOs for comparison. Putting in a dummy value doesn't work for ELO.

And I find it hilarious that we're having this discussion here when on AGoT cards everyone freely puts their names. It's such a bizarre dichotomy. I wholly understand not wanting PII on the internet and respect it. It just makes stat tracking difficult.

I also understand the "no wall of shame" argument, so I understand the lack of pool play info. I wish people would email me their tourney results files, though (with handles/anonymity notes where it's desired). I NEED MOAR DATA!!!!!

I formatted with first name, last initial. Would have been quite helpful I think, especially for those without an online presence that play in multiple tournaments. It's fine if an individual wants to remove their info, but I did think it was lame that someone came through and cleared all of that info for every player in the tournament (I think I had matched a player to a deck for all 23 participants, but at least 20 of them were entered). Not too big of a deal, all the people who are on the forums have their handles entered so that's still there at least. But it would have been nice to be able to easily track how players do at multiple tournaments in each region (like the winner of Springfield's SC, Brett V., who was at the Tulsa tournament as well; which deck did he play in Tulsa? how well did he do? no way to find out now without tracking him down and asking).

I guess it really comes down to whether or not we think there is any merit to recording individual players or if we just want to collect data regarding deck popularity and success (in which case there is no need to record the player at all).

I greatly appreciated even just a letter. I have a bunch of names already and it made it much easier to find the people and their stats for record-keeping purposes. Unique identifies make data collection so much better!

[istaril]

Metadata updated with all the tournaments submitted over the weekend.

[scantrell24]

For ELO to work (I wasn't aware Scantrell was doing anything)

I'm not. He meant you.

[istaril]

I did - my apologies.

[mdc273]

Inaccuracies on the internet?

"Say whaaaaaaaaaat?!" - Abraham Lincoln

[istaril]

Another good weekend for the sheet: 6 tournaments, not including the full stats for Batalla por el Muro, which I expect later this week. We've cracked 1000 datapoints across 58 tournaments.

[mdc273]

Thanks to those putting in names. MOAR DATA!!!!

[JohnyNFullEffect]

Updated Input 1 with the Warriors 3 Michigan Store Championship.

[mdc273]

Mmmm.... data....

Also, I figured out a better way than last name to track people. Put their home meta after their last letter initial. I've been doing it myself, but people who play in multiple metas will likely throw off my ability to track them, not that it really matters from anyone's perspective but my own.