Drawn games and other new ideas for LOEG . . .

[stockwellpete]

One thing I would like to see is NOT being forced to fight a battle that a half way decent general wouldn't fight! Such as when one side has total terrain advantage. In such a case as commander I would refuse to fight and move on until I found a more favarable battlefield. Now, how could we come up with battle maps that don't favor one side to an extreme? Would it be alright to just set on your side and not accept battle? I have come up against this numerous times and in a real life situation , I wouldnot fight under those circumstances. In such an instance, would you call it a draw or try a differant battle map??? Okie

I do think some of the maps are very poor - there are quite a few with a big open space in the middle and with all the terrain features around the outside. If you then get a HF/Cav versus MF match-up it is quite possible that the MF army will try and deploy round the edges and that usually makes for a poorer game. So I definitely agree that we need better maps. I did design 50 or 60 for the game when HexWar were involved and some of them are used in the game now. When cothyso has the new system settled down I will offer to do some more. I also think we need to get some of the weaker maps withdrawn.

I think claymore has the answer to your second point - "How about an option to re-fight within X turns - if agreed by both parties? If players do NOT agree to re-fight, then the game continues. But can be mutually declared a "draw". Points are then awarded based on the 4-2-1-0 idea? This would at least give those players who wish to fight a particular match the option to do so. I guess the re-fight card should be limited to only one play per match-up?" I think this formulation covers all the bases and it should be considered for use by LOEG and other competitions that have a league format.

[pantherboy]

This issue was raised a number of seasons ago and I did address the matter in the rules. I can't find them anymore as organisers have modified them since my departure. I indicated before that players were free to restart any of their games if agreed to by their opponent. There was nothing forcing the two players to play out the match. Only a ruling existed if the match was incorrectly setup and the player who didn't set it up had the option to accept the match or ask for a restart (the intent for this was to avoid a player incorrectly setting things up on purpose to try and eek out an advantage).

The problem is that usually one of the two parties involved is happy for a draw due to a mismatch between armies. I've never worried about draws since they are generally the result of poor map selection for earning a result or one player having taken a one dimensional army. If a player chooses a map that benefits them too much but contains some terrain that will advantage their opponent then it is reasonable to expect their opponent to turtle. Equally if a players wins initiative with an inferior army for the matchup then they are likely to pick something allowing them to turtle and claim a draw or force the hand of their opponent. Unless he two armies are balanced it is unlikely that one player would agree to a restart as it would likely result in a loss.

So we then get to the matter of competitiveness. If you want to win a league then you'll have to play as an aggressor and as such choosing a defensive army won't aid in your cause or playing defensively either. I don't feel there is any simple ruling that can be made to force outcomes but rather the experience of gaming will trend people to more competitive play as they will become bored if playing too defensively or with an army that lacks versatility.

This is an interesting topic and warrants further debate.

Cheers,

Steve

[hidde]

The problem is that usually one of the two parties involved is happy for a draw due to a mismatch between armies.
Unless he two armies are balanced it is unlikely that one player would agree to a restart as it would likely result in a loss.

If I may chip in, I would like to say theese quotes highlight something I find more and more problematic. In fact it has started to lower my enthusiasm for the league the last couple of seasons.
Mismatch between armies happens to much due to the nature of a very open format.
I don't want to derail this thread. Maybe you don't want any discussion about the format,Steve, or take it in another thread.
Two words only; mirror games.

[pantherboy]

The problem is that usually one of the two parties involved is happy for a draw due to a mismatch between armies.
Unless he two armies are balanced it is unlikely that one player would agree to a restart as it would likely result in a loss.

If I may chip in, I would like to say theese quotes highlight something I find more and more problematic. In fact it has started to lower my enthusiasm for the league the last couple of seasons.
Mismatch between armies happens to much due to the nature of a very open format.
I don't want to derail this thread. Maybe you don't want any discussion about the format,Steve, or take it in another thread.
Two words only; mirror games.

I agree with you hidde. Besides being busy when I took my break I also felt that the initiative determined too much at the start of the battle mostly due to the inability of players to construct their own battlefields as per the table top rules. The other reason was dissatisfaction with the game system in regards to command and control, combat outcomes, ahistorical tactics, the lack of phases leading to twenty archers pin cushioning a single target etc. I do understand that it is simply a game but there are simple solutions without deconstructing the game. But that is all for another thread in the general community.

What may be a good idea is to shrink each division down to six players thus creating a wider strata which would allow mirror games but in truth mirror games are faulty as the match can't be guaranteed of occurring on the same map. This could lead to a game between two mismatched armies where both have distinct advantages in certain terrain. For example a MF army with a lot of bows like the Jews versus a cavalry army full of lancers. One player may win both initiatives leading to an open battlefield when the lancer side and then a cluttered field when the Jews.

I really enjoyed playing in Lysimachos scenario tournament playing mirror matches. In such a format I feel it has the greatest strength. It may be advisable to see if players would like to try a season with scenarios like I did in the pre-season 1 tournament for placings in season 1. Another option could be to go with themed leagues that change season to season.

Many things to think about. Anyone else have an opinion?

Cheers,

Steve

[stockwellpete]

I think mirror matches in smaller divisions is an interesting idea, Steve. One thing this will automatically do will be to enable LOEG organisers to group players of similar skill levels more easily together. I am particularly thinking of the "A" divisions here where there is often quite a skill gap between the top-notch "A" grade players and fairly good "B" grade players who are sometimes asked to play in Division "A". I think that smaller divisions would lead to a more competitive, and more enjoyable competition. And perhaps if you stipulated that both players chose "mixed terrain" in the mirror matches then that would mitigate even more against one-sided battles.

More generally, I think that sensible innovation is always a good thing and it helps to keep a competition fresh. A number of players enjoyed the Super League a few seasons back. Maybe that would work again with mirror matches? Theming leagues historically and using historical scenarios would also get my support. Personally speaking, this is the direction in which I would like to see the league to evolve now. One way to introduce these ideas would be to just trial it into one section of the competition at first (or even in just one division) and see what players make of it - there may be one or two issues that need ironing out before it is rolled out to the wider competition.

On a specific issue here, and only when "Oath of Fealty" comes out, I would divide the medieval period into "Western Europe 1100-1500" and "Eastern Europe and western Asia 1100-1500". The reason for this would be the armies are quite different between western and eastern Europe/Asia because of the geography of the two areas. In the western areas, you have lots of mountains, hills and valleys, which led to smaller polities with their castles, knights and large contingents of spearmen and foot archers/crossbowmen in their armies; whereas in the eastern areas, because of the wide open plains and steppe, you tended to get more mobile horse armies with much smaller auxiliary foot contingents. For that reason, I don't think "Storm of Arrows" makes a particularly comfortable fit with "Eternal Empire".

[fogman]

The problem is that usually one of the two parties involved is happy for a draw due to a mismatch between armies.
Unless he two armies are balanced it is unlikely that one player would agree to a restart as it would likely result in a loss.

If I may chip in, I would like to say theese quotes highlight something I find more and more problematic. In fact it has started to lower my enthusiasm for the league the last couple of seasons.
Mismatch between armies happens to much due to the nature of a very open format.
I don't want to derail this thread. Maybe you don't want any discussion about the format,Steve, or take it in another thread.
Two words only; mirror games.

I agree with you hidde. Besides being busy when I took my break I also felt that the initiative determined too much at the start of the battle mostly due to the inability of players to construct their own battlefields as per the table top rules. The other reason was dissatisfaction with the game system in regards to command and control, combat outcomes, ahistorical tactics, the lack of phases leading to twenty archers pin cushioning a single target etc. I do understand that it is simply a game but there are simple solutions without deconstructing the game. But that is all for another thread in the general community.

What may be a good idea is to shrink each division down to six players thus creating a wider strata which would allow mirror games but in truth mirror games are faulty as the match can't be guaranteed of occurring on the same map. This could lead to a game between two mismatched armies where both have distinct advantages in certain terrain. For example a MF army with a lot of bows like the Jews versus a cavalry army full of lancers. One player may win both initiatives leading to an open battlefield when the lancer side and then a cluttered field when the Jews.

I really enjoyed playing in Lysimachos scenario tournament playing mirror matches. In such a format I feel it has the greatest strength. It may be advisable to see if players would like to try a season with scenarios like I did in the pre-season 1 tournament for placings in season 1. Another option could be to go with themed leagues that change season to season.

Many things to think about. Anyone else have an opinion?

Cheers,

Steve

Everything you hint at here have been implemented in the Lords series for the past six months. I went further by imposing terrain and by restricting armies so that they are truly equivalent, although with their own strength (like pikes against romans in latest series). there are next to no instances (except one) of negative play because armies are truly evenly matched.

[hidde]

The problem is that usually one of the two parties involved is happy for a draw due to a mismatch between armies.
Unless he two armies are balanced it is unlikely that one player would agree to a restart as it would likely result in a loss.

If I may chip in, I would like to say theese quotes highlight something I find more and more problematic. In fact it has started to lower my enthusiasm for the league the last couple of seasons.
Mismatch between armies happens to much due to the nature of a very open format.
I don't want to derail this thread. Maybe you don't want any discussion about the format,Steve, or take it in another thread.
Two words only; mirror games.

I agree with you hidde. Besides being busy when I took my break I also felt that the initiative determined too much at the start of the battle mostly due to the inability of players to construct their own battlefields as per the table top rules. The other reason was dissatisfaction with the game system in regards to command and control, combat outcomes, ahistorical tactics, the lack of phases leading to twenty archers pin cushioning a single target etc. I do understand that it is simply a game but there are simple solutions without deconstructing the game. But that is all for another thread in the general community.

What may be a good idea is to shrink each division down to six players thus creating a wider strata which would allow mirror games but in truth mirror games are faulty as the match can't be guaranteed of occurring on the same map. This could lead to a game between two mismatched armies where both have distinct advantages in certain terrain. For example a MF army with a lot of bows like the Jews versus a cavalry army full of lancers. One player may win both initiatives leading to an open battlefield when the lancer side and then a cluttered field when the Jews.

I really enjoyed playing in Lysimachos scenario tournament playing mirror matches. In such a format I feel it has the greatest strength. It may be advisable to see if players would like to try a season with scenarios like I did in the pre-season 1 tournament for placings in season 1. Another option could be to go with themed leagues that change season to season.

Many things to think about. Anyone else have an opinion?

Cheers,

Steve

Yes, that was a great tournament. Almost all the scenarios were well balanced and the maps were awesome! I wish Slith would let players with a knack for it make maps to use with the DAG battles. Heck, there should be plenty of maps around as we speak that are better then most of the ones we have now.

LOEG; If I could whish I would choose themed leagues. Keep the four leauges but for each season narrow down the choices within each to about 20-25 armies that are well suited to give balanced games.
One downside is a lot more work for the organizers I suppose but if, lets say, three lists for each league were created once and than used on a rotating scheme?

[stockwellpete]

Yes, that was a great tournament. Almost all the scenarios were well balanced and the maps were awesome! I wish Slith would let players with a knack for it make maps to use with the DAG battles. Heck, there should be plenty of maps around as we speak that are better then most of the ones we have now.

Once cothyso has got the new version of FOG settled down I think a delegation from LOEG should approach him about improving the map situation. There are half a dozen really poor ones that I can think of that should be removed immediately and it wouldn't take that long for 3 or 4 of us to knock up 50+ new maps for consideration. Another quick way of creating more maps would be to use many of the official scenario maps we have - assuming it is possible just to delete all the units off them. Also, might it be possible to include player-made scenarios in LOEG in future? We must have 200+ of these now between the scenario designers. I could certainly provide themed groups of scenarios - Hundred Years War, War of the Roses, England v Scotland, Early Renaissance and so on.

LOEG; If I could whish I would choose themed leagues. Keep the four leauges but for each season narrow down the choices within each to about 20-25 armies that are well suited to give balanced games.
One downside is a lot more work for the organizers I suppose but if, lets say, three lists for each league were created once and than used on a rotating scheme?

Yes, it would be a lot of work for just one person, but as LOEG has evolved a bit and now has convenors as well (making 5 people in total a possibility) then this would not be such a daunting task. And, as you say, the work would only really need doing once. Once you had the themed lists made up you could just use them as and when required.

[Morbio]

My two penneth on various LOEG and FoG related issues.

Players should not be forced to fight in situations where any decent general would refuse battle. A draw can be great result for some armies in some situations. All players need to accept it and not moan about it - especially when the rules allow draws.

Players should be free to play at whatever speed they like within the confine of the league rules. If there are X months to complete a game, then so long a game completes in that time that is fine. There are times when players will be absent (planned or unplanned), ill, busy with work, or are not in the right frame of mind. Ideally, periods of absence should be communicated in advance out of courtesy.

Players should refine from whining and moaning in the forums. If the 'issue' is within the league rules then deal with it. If you don't like the league rules then petition the competition leader for a change in the future. If the 'issue' is related to a possible infringement of the league rules then take it offline to the appointed competition umpires or organisers. Publically disparaging does the poster no credit whatsoever.

Mirror matches are great because they will reduce, but not eliminate (as previously explained by Pantherboy), the variation between armies. I think this is the best way forward and this would need smaller leagues or longer durations. I favour the smaller leagues because I agree with the comments about the variation of player competence.

Maps are what they are, and until the game changes and we can pre-select or create maps, then everyone needs to accept them. Personally I find some of the categorisation of maps very strange, but they are what they are. I wouldn't remove any maps because who is to say what everyone must play with. It may be that some players may want to play 'extreme FoG' in the same way that some people want to ski from the top of a mountain.

Everyone should respect and be grateful to the organisers. It's generally a time consuming job and sometimes complex too. These people have lives to lead too and sometimes they are doing the job because no one else will. Whether a person is a league newbie or a previous organiser is irrelevant, they should not publically criticise the organisers. In my opinion people should be warned once then kicked from the league for this.

I believe that all movements with units should be legal if the game allows them. I agree that some may be unrealistic or possibly not what the game designer meant, but to ban certain types of movement is problematic. Firstly, it’s difficult to police and not everyone will know a certain move is banned and it’s unrealistic to expect that everyone reads everything in the forum and to refer back to something that was posted months or years ago is futile. The only way to effectively do this is by explicitly specifying in the league. Secondly, when it does occur as it surely must, it is another source of discontent and argument. The bottom line is that the game has its own rules built in, let’s use them and everyone is thus equal and no person’s view of right or wrong is imposed on another.

[flatsix518]

I agree 100% with Morbio's post. 100%.

Editing to add some comments here.

1) I don't think LoEG is "broken". A heavy handed modification could do more harm than good.

2) I think all of us would do well to remember it is the "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" -- we should behave accordingly. Personally, I think that's the one violation that should get someone excluded. Failing to be gentlemanly. I find it difficult to understand how two players in the context of how PBEM works could become put out with one another. It's not like we're sitting across the table from one another and having to watch some one pick their nose, and damage our figures.

3) I think Morbio is alluding to the "split move rear charge 'cheat'". I agree with Morbio -- let the computer game control "legal and illegal". If you can move it that way, it's legal. I think the opportunities to do a split move rear charge are rare. It could be very easy for someone, especially a newbie, to unintentionally make a split move rear charge. Only hard feelings can come out of trying to enforce this. Heck, it took me a few days to even figure out what it was and how to execute one. I've been scared ever since that I might accidentally do one and have to forfeit a game.

4) On the other hand...it would be nice to enforce someone deliberately crashing the client to redo a turn...but even that could happen by accident. Has happened to me when my Windows machine crashed on me, etc. But only the PBEM server could really do that for us.

5) As for draws -- again why try to fix what ain't broke. It is very historically accurate for armies to refuse battle. It is also very historically accurate for armies to find themselves on the "wrong" battlefield (think Carrhae).

6) I could see a slight tweak for "bloody draws". Awarding 1.5 points for fighting both armies past breakpoint.

flatsix518 "the thick"

[stockwellpete]

Players should be free to play at whatever speed they like within the confine of the league rules. If there are X months to complete a game, then so long a game completes in that time that is fine. There are times when players will be absent (planned or unplanned), ill, busy with work, or are not in the right frame of mind. Ideally, periods of absence should be communicated in advance out of courtesy.

I disagree with this, Morbio. I think that once players start a match then they should play it at a reasonable pace until it reaches its conclusion. Of course, the key word in that last sentence is "reasonable". Who is to say what is reasonable? I think one way to address this issue is for the organisers to include in the rules a sentence saying something like, "we expect all matches to be completed within one month of their starting date; persistent slow play may affect the number of leagues you may enter in subsequent seasons". This does not necessarily have to be a rule, rather it should be seen as organisers trying to develop a convention that is of benefit to everyone in the league. A month is actually a very long time for a game and I would expect that 95%+ of matches are completed within this timeframe (and very many of them comfortably within this timeframe).

So the purpose of saying something like this would be to address those minority of very awkward matches that go beyond one month. It would not impact at all on matches where a player doesn't move for a few days because they are very busy at work or at home. Within this very small group of games I am also not including those where someone notifies their opponent that they are going on holiday for 2 weeks, or something like that - in these cases the clock should stop ticking until they come back.

All that would need to happen is that if a player was in a game that went past the month checkpoint they would then PM the convenor of that section with a brief explanation of the situation (e.g. we are on turn 10, my opponent has disappeared, the last move was 12 days ago etc). The convenor would acknowledge the PM and then try and contact the other player to resolve the issue. The match in question would then be entered on a "Slow Play" list by the tournament secretary. In most circumstances I would then expect the game to be re-started in due course.

At the end of the tournament the organisers would look at the Slow Play list together. There wouldn't be that many games on it, but if there were one or two players whose names appeared multiple times then the organisers might consider reducing the number of leagues they could enter next time, in the same way that players who do not complete all their matches are sometimes dealt with.

I think something along these lines would be a step forward for the league. It would be completely discreet and unobtrusive and the vast majority of players would never have to concern themselves with it at all.

[pantherboy]

Just so that it is very clear. The split move rear charge was patched many moons ago. It is impossible to replicate now and has been verified by myself and other players. What would happen before the patch was someone could move behind an enemy BG as part of their forward movement and then complete it with a charge upon the rear of said BG causing an auto cohesion loss. Now if you perform the same move you will not cause an auto cohesion loss but you will receive the benefits of contacting an enemy to the rear (automatic 2 POA). What has thrown some players for a loop is that they see their BG lose two cohesion levels so they have concluded that it was due to the illegal move but in fact it was caused by a crummy cohesion test (remember if you score 2 or less than you drop two levels).

Cheers,

Steve

[pantherboy]

As far as timing goes for matches I prefer Morbio's take but I'm curious how many players actually have concerns with speed of play. I believe in simplicity, especially for rules, and that the league can run itself once a season begins with little policing from organizers. From this standpoint I find Pete's idea to be an extra layer of bureaucracy that isn't needed. Obviously it matters to Pete but what is more important is whether it is a commonly shared view by other players. If it is then some kind of ruling will be needed.

As for draws I'm still in the camp for allowing them but then again I didn't want FOW since I like the idea of undoing moves. It is a real pain with these archer armies when you make a wrong turn Let's keep the ideas rolling in guys.

Cheers,

Steve

[Aristides]

I do think a separation of deadlines would be best at least as a guideline.
Not just because games tend to be more fun when there aren't delays, but because of two kinds of fixture-congestion:

A) A tendency for many is to start only a few games, and to play quite slowly, because the d-line is so far off. Then as the d-line rapidly approaches, those players suddenly have a very large number of games to play.

B) Others seem to start with 20 games or more (the max of 20 games seems to have changed recently), and then run into trouble playing moves for all those games, causing delays in some games.

A check at 25%, 50% and 75% of the playing period that a quarter, a half, and three quarters of each player's results have been entered would help, I think.
It wouldn't have to be too strict but would help prevent too large a load of games towards the end of the period for type A) people, and will encourage type B) types to not start too many games at once.

So a guideline like:

"To avoid fixture congestion, due to starting games late, and delays due to starting too many games at once, please keep in mind the following.

Period 1) March 23 - April 15 - ca. 25% games played
Period 1) April 15 - May 1 - ca. 50% games played
etc."

The only downside is it means more work for the organisers.

[Aristides]

LOEG; ... Keep the four leauges but for each season narrow down the choices within each to about 20-25 armies that are well suited to give balanced games.

I think this idea has great merit - though I would rather look at it from the other side and just take out some armies that are very 1-dimensional (e.g., Swiss). Also, the very existence of such a rule would be a reminder to players about not encouraging unplayed draws.

[stockwellpete]

From this standpoint I find Pete's idea to be an extra layer of bureaucracy that isn't needed.

I think it depends on what organising structure the league has in future, Steve. If it is decided that just one person is to run the league in future then I think the way that you used to run the league is fine. But if we are going to have a "secretary" and four "convenors" then I think they could deal with this extra level of intervention - it won't actually involve a great deal of work. I would also have the "convenors" enter the results on the spreadsheets too.

[pantherboy]

From this standpoint I find Pete's idea to be an extra layer of bureaucracy that isn't needed.

I think it depends on what organising structure the league has in future, Steve. If it is decided that just one person is to run the league in future then I think the way that you used to run the league is fine. But if we are going to have a "secretary" and four "convenors" then I think they could deal with this extra level of intervention - it won't actually involve a great deal of work. I would also have the "convenors" enter the results on the spreadsheets too.

I remember I use to enter all the results myself before shifting the onus onto players. It really cut down on time but if the "conveners" don't mind then it would reduce instances of entering results incorrectly and also having to dig through a thread looking for a missing entry.

[stockwellpete]

I remember I use to enter all the results myself before shifting the onus onto players. It really cut down on time but if the "conveners" don't mind then it would reduce instances of entering results incorrectly and also having to dig through a thread looking for a missing entry.

I also think it would help the organisers as a group to have a much better understanding of what is going on in the league e.g. who is playing their games, who hasn't started, if a new player is struggling with the procedures a bit etc.

Also, there is a wider developmental aspect to all this with the "convenors", in the sense of broadening out the organisational base among FOG players generally that will not only benefit LOEG, but will also assist the development of other tournaments as well. Already there are a number of people who have helped with LOEG who are now doing interesting stuff in the Competitions section of the forum.

[stockwellpete]

A new organising structure for LOEG?

Preamble
For the first seven seasons of its existence the structure of LOEG was very simple. Steve (pantherboy) ran the competition on his own and his major inputs of time for organisation were at the very beginning of a season and then again right at the end. This was a very successful model and the league encountered very few problems while he was the organiser. Since the beginning of the eighth season though, the league has been run in a different way with three or four people contributing their time and efforts. This has been less successful, in my view (I was involved in the eighth season), and I think this is primarily because the new structure of the league has not been fully thought through. In addition, the rules have become a chaotic mess and adjudication was not done at the end of the ninth season so league tables were left incomplete.

So the proposal below is an attempt to address the issues now and to make explicit the roles of the "secretary" and "convenors" (four of them) that would constitute a new organising committee. A very obvious question about all this might be - why do you need a committee, why not go back to using the model that was so successful at the beginning for LOEG? There are two things to consider here. Firstly, if one person is to run the league on his own again in future, do we have that person among us who has both the time and the inclination as well as the same level of competence as Steve to do it as successfully? Secondly - and this is what this proposal is really about - if we switch to a broader-based organising structure now can we take LOEG up to the next level as a competition, both in terms of its size and in terms of its content (mirror matches, historical theming, use of scenarios etc)?

The context for making this kind of organisational shift now is that FOG is about to enter a new phase in its development. Cothyso is currently at the public beta phase with the UNITY version of the game. This will be released soon, then will come two new expansion packs "Wolves From the Sea" and "Oaths of Fealty", and then will come discussions for FOG v2 for the PC. With these new products on the market there should be many more new players around in the coming period that we can recruit to our competitions. One of the priorities for the new committee will surely be to find ways to reach these new players so that our competitions are never short of players again - in this season of LOEG some of the sections did not reach thirty players and some divisions only had seven players. This need not happen again.


Proposal
In future, LOEG should move to a broader-based organising structure that has a committee comprised of a secretary and four section convenors (Classical, Imperial, Dark Age and Medieval). The five members of this committee will have equal voting rights with regards to all matters concerning the league.

The special responsibilities of the secretary would include . . .
i) to oversee the day-to-day running of the league in liaison with the convenors
ii) to be the spokesperson for the committee on the forum
iii) to arrange for the completion of statistics and ratings at the end of each season

The special responsibilities of the convenors would include . . .
i) to be the first point of contact for players in their section while the competition is in progress
ii) to record the results for their section on the spread sheets
iii) to report instances of slow play or of players going absent to the other members of the committee

All members of the committee would have equal responsibility for . . .
iv) the format of the league for the coming season
v) the recruitment of players at the start of the league and the building of reserve lists
vi) the allocation of players to divisions
vii) the resolution of any irregularities or problems that may occur

Proposal Ends

[Turk1964]

Hi Pete
Read through all your proposals and agree with all points.Especially convenors responsibilty to place scores on the spreadsheet as at the momment i am constantly checking to see if players have recorded their results. We have some players who have trouble understanding the core rules and what they should be doing. More so the new players or those who english isnt their first language.
The one thing you havent included is appointment of secretary and convenors. Who will apoint the various roles? I think the Secretary should be appointed by majority vote from the players and then those who wish to be convenors put their names forward and the Secretary has the final say.Personally the Secretary should be someone who understands the game fully and has a diplomatic demina because we dont want a replay of this seasons debacle. Players are to understand that in no way are they to publicly air their grieviances as that is the boards job.


Cheers Turk