Tournament Cooldown Time?

[JoeBlo]

its been mentioned so I figured I will pose the question to everyone

Thread rules...

Nothing will be set in concrete right this second, its just to hear thoughts on this topic alone, anything else will be deleted.

---------------------

Ok possible options for Hosts who just completed a tournament

1) may jump straight into the discussion section again (current)

2) must wait every _____ poll at least (second, third, hundredth, whatever you think)

3) must wait a period of time (again say what you think

---------------------

nothing will be necessarily done, so don't feel its a public vote, just an open discussion....

[G.K.]

Don't see any reason why we should stop them from doing so. 1) is my personal view.

[JoeBlo]

just to clarify I am completely neutral on this, others brought up the topic so I figured I should gather all opinions on it...

[Naryar]

I say we judge the just-completed-tournament's worth, and then give a deadline according to that.

If it is well done, then go straight away. If it is ok, maybe wait a little for the guy to prepare. If it fails... BAN from tournament section.

[Scorpion]

I say we judge the just-completed-tournament's worth, and then give a deadline according to that.

If it is well done, then go straight away. If it is ok, maybe wait a little for the guy to prepare. If it fails... BAN from tournament section.

Maybe the ban parts a bit harsh, but the rest sounds fair enough.

[Naryar]

I say we judge the just-completed-tournament's worth, and then give a deadline according to that.

If it is well done, then go straight away. If it is ok, maybe wait a little for the guy to prepare. If it fails... BAN from tournament section.

Maybe the ban parts a bit harsh, but the rest sounds fair enough.

It worked for TX well enough. And I means failing like REALLY failing. AKA Terror Twisters (something LRA2 did).

[G.K.]

Which was completed. I may upload the other vids sometime.

[Scorpion]

I say we judge the just-completed-tournament's worth, and then give a deadline according to that.

If it is well done, then go straight away. If it is ok, maybe wait a little for the guy to prepare. If it fails... BAN from tournament section.

Maybe the ban parts a bit harsh, but the rest sounds fair enough.

It worked for TX well enough. And I means failing like REALLY failing. AKA Terror Twisters (something LRA2 did).

Hmm, yeah, actually it does make a lot of sense to ban them, perhaps there should be some kind of limit on how long you have to be here before you can start a tournament though aswell...

[yoda9726]

Hmm, yeah, actually it does make a lot of sense to ban them, perhaps there should be some kind of limit on how long you have to be here before you can start a tournament though aswell...

How long you've been here doesn't necessarily mean anything, though.  Remember, some of us lurked for quite some time before posting.  Not to toot my own horn, but a few said I hadn't been here long enough to run one, and i'd like to think mine went pretty good. 
 
Anyway, I don't see any harm in allowing them to jump right back into discussion.  They still have to get voted in and all that.  I would say put a limit on it if they manage to get two tournaments through voting in a row.  Give some others a chance.  Personally, I don't see why anyone would want to jump straight back in.  I'm just now getting inclined to MAYBE start a discussion for my next one.

[Scorpion]

Hmm, yeah, actually it does make a lot of sense to ban them, perhaps there should be some kind of limit on how long you have to be here before you can start a tournament though aswell...

How long you've been here doesn't necessarily mean anything, though.  Remember, some of us lurked for quite some time before posting.  Not to toot my own horn, but a few said I hadn't been here long enough to run one, and i'd like to think mine went pretty good. 
 
Anyway, I don't see any harm in allowing them to jump right back into discussion.  They still have to get voted in and all that.  I would say put a limit on it if they manage to get two tournaments through voting in a row.  Give some others a chance.  Personally, I don't see why anyone would want to jump straight back in.  I'm just now getting inclined to MAYBE start a discussion for my next one.

I agree  with you on both points, but I was just thinking about extreme noobs.
Somebody who'd join and start a tourney straight away without knowing anything already.
Although. perhaps it is abit harsh as there will be many, like you said, who've lurked for a long time and would end up being screwed by that rul.
I don't see the harm in the cooldown rule like NAr suggested though, even considering your point, it'd still be a good idea to try and limit the amount of tourneys a bit.

[Naryar]

About allowing a new guy to make a tournament : Case by case basis. If he's a noob, then that's a no. If the guy seems intelligent, then yes.

[Scorpion]

About allowing a new guy to make a tournament : Case by case basis. If he's a noob, then that's a no. If the guy seems intelligent, then yes.

Yeah, another good idea, but how would that be decided?
Poll vote seems a bit of a pain, and reputation system seems a bit unfair.

[Naryar]

About allowing a new guy to make a tournament : Case by case basis. If he's a noob, then that's a no. If the guy seems intelligent, then yes.

Yeah, another good idea, but how would that be decided?
Poll vote seems a bit of a pain, and reputation system seems a bit unfair.

Admin staff and maybe advanced users should have their word to say.

And "unfair" There's nothing unfair in either acting mature, intelligent and constructive and getting appreciated OR being a n00b and reaping what you sow.

[Scorpion]

About allowing a new guy to make a tournament : Case by case basis. If he's a noob, then that's a no. If the guy seems intelligent, then yes.

Yeah, another good idea, but how would that be decided?
Poll vote seems a bit of a pain, and reputation system seems a bit unfair.

Admin staff and maybe advanced users should have their word to say.

And "unfair" There's nothing unfair in either acting mature, intelligent and constructive and getting appreciated OR being a n00b and reaping what you sow.

I was saying that judging whether or not they should be allowed to host tournaments based on their rep is unfair.
The actual idea is spot-on IMO and would work well if it was AUs and mods.

[Somebody]

Well I don't remember TX being too bad before he tried his first tourney. Also, any tournament has to go through the voting now, so if we as forum members are stupid enough to vote it in, then it is partly our problem.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.