The new scoring system...

[ChrisTofalos]

madaxeman wrote:

Let me rephrase. "It would be illegal under GPPR for the organisers of these 8 events to pass the contact details of the individuals who entered them onto someone else for use in a FoG players email list".

Small, not-for-profit organisations such as wargames clubs and societies are EXEMPT from most of the rigmarole of GDPR.

Here's an extract from an online guide:
"You might be a club, society or a small charity. Your activities are likely constrained to local fund-raising or exhibitions. You may collect data for a mailing list, newsletter, or simply to inform members of what is happening."

Consent is the main guiding principle with GDPR. A simple message should suffice: Would you like to be kept up to date with news and development in the FOG-AM community and be entitled to vote on subjects such as competition rules, etc?

Seems reasonably easy and, one way or the other, is FAR from the impossible you suggested.

[madaxeman]

... From the bottom half of the table only 23% are still listed. That's almost four out of five dropping out and a massive loss to the game. I think there's more than a reasonable chance habitually being slaughtered contributed to these losses.

All rulesets, no matter how established or new, seem to have around 40% of their player base who only ever enter 1 event each year - so players who end up at the bottom half of the rankings are not there because they play lots of events and lose all the time, they are there because they are only occasional players anyway, who only enter in 1-2 events each year.

What you are seeing is therefore nothing to do with the scoring system, its just a 10-year old ruleset suffering higher attrition among its occasional players than its committed regular players, at a time when there are a couple of new alternative systems out there and when there's also a new version that means to carry on playing competitions now requires a £100 investment in 4 new books. Both of those things are going to cause greater attrition among occasional players than committed ones - and both are a more compelling explanation than a change in the number of points you get awarded for losing a game.

Or, sadly and regrettably, and much as it pains me to say so, Dave Ruddock is making a lot of* sense here.

(*but not complete)

[dave_r]

madaxeman wrote:

Let me rephrase. "It would be illegal under GPPR for the organisers of these 8 events to pass the contact details of the individuals who entered them onto someone else for use in a FoG players email list".

Small, not-for-profit organisations such as wargames clubs and societies are EXEMPT from most of the rigmarole of GDPR.

Here's an extract from an online guide:
"You might be a club, society or a small charity. Your activities are likely constrained to local fund-raising or exhibitions. You may collect data for a mailing list, newsletter, or simply to inform members of what is happening."

Consent is the main guiding principle with GDPR. A simple message should suffice: Would you like to be kept up to date with news and development in the FOG-AM community and be entitled to vote on subjects such as competition rules, etc?

Seems reasonably easy and, one way or the other, is FAR from the impossible you suggested.

Chris, I've worked on GDPR projects for major institutions. I would be very wary about "online guides" as they are not likely to accept liability if you get sued.

I'd also note that keeping people's email addresses and sending them stuff is fine (as long as you have given them the option to opt-out), however, passing those details to third parties without specific consent is definitely illegal and will end up with you in court facing substantial losses if somebody chucks a wobbler.

[ChrisTofalos]

I'd also note that keeping people's email addresses and sending them stuff is fine (as long as you have given them the option to opt-out), however, passing those details to third parties without specific consent is definitely illegal and will end up with you in court facing substantial losses if somebody chucks a wobbler.

Where on earth did I suggest passing details to third parties without consent? Read what I wrote again, please.

[dave_r]

I'd also note that keeping people's email addresses and sending them stuff is fine (as long as you have given them the option to opt-out), however, passing those details to third parties without specific consent is definitely illegal and will end up with you in court facing substantial losses if somebody chucks a wobbler.

Where on earth did I suggest passing details to third parties without consent? Read what I wrote again, please.

Chris,

Here is where you said it:

Perhaps we need a FOG-AM players' association to oversee such things as scoring, comp rules, handicaps and, above all, the promotion of and future success of FOG

This "FOG-AM" players' association" would be a third party body to whom tournament organisers would have to pass personal details of the players to. Which, as I've said, would be illegal.

[ChrisTofalos]

I am ONLY concerned with stopping the falling numbers of FOG players from continuing.

I've suggested changes to the aggressive scoring system and introducing handicaps.

Can't see much in the way of positive suggestions from either Tim (an ADLG devotee!) or Dave. In fact, all they seem to have contributed is negative, "you can't do this or you can't do that"-type comments.

Have they or anyone else actually got any other ideas that can help improve matters?

[dave_r]

I am ONLY concerned with stopping the falling numbers of FOG players from continuing.

I've suggested changes to the aggressive scoring system and introducing handicaps.

Can't see much in the way of positive suggestions from either Tim (an ADLG devotee!) or Dave. In fact, all they seem to have contributed is negative, "you can't do this or you can't do that"-type comments.

Have they or anyone else actually got any other ideas that can help improve matters?

Chris,

I'm doing as much as I can. I support competition, I publicise FoG as much as I can and I speak to people to find out what they want.

Do you honestly believe that there is an easy solution that would suddently triple the number of FoG players? Do you not think that if there was something easy somebody would have thought of it by now? I mean we have all these other rulesets attempting to get as many players as they can, are they doing anything differently? If they were, then everybody else would instantly copy that solution or be consigned to oblivion.

[madaxeman]

... and whilst we are on the subject of privacy and the like, thanks Chris for posting tagged links to my name and personal page all over Facebook just now suggesting that I've said;

"the current field of Version 3 competitors in the UK has been increased by 20% by new players."

That's not really going to help promote FoGAM ...

[nikgaukroger]

Well to comment on Chris' question about people promoting v3 I'd have to say that Dave's posts are generally nice and positive about the game and are likely to encourage IMO. A bit different from Chris who always seems to be moaning about something to me - I'm sure he is trying to help but the wording is somewhat negative.

[vexillia]

Of the 55 people who have played MeG at a UK event this year;
- 34 of them also have appeared in the FoG rankings at some point in time/history.
However, only 9 of them have appeared in a FoG event that has taken place since January 2017 - and of these 9, 2 still actively play both systems.
13 of the current MeG players I can also recognise as being former FoGR players, but this isn't as accurate as the numbers above.
19 of the 55 current MeG players don't appear to have played either FoGR or FoG AM before.

Of the 40-odd FoGAM players who appeared at an event in 2017 but have yet to play FoG v3 in 2018, around 20 of them now appear in the ADLG rankings.

Thanks Tim. It's a bit different from Dave's "observations & chats" at tournaments.

[dave_r]

Of the 55 people who have played MeG at a UK event this year;
- 34 of them also have appeared in the FoG rankings at some point in time/history.
However, only 9 of them have appeared in a FoG event that has taken place since January 2017 - and of these 9, 2 still actively play both systems.
13 of the current MeG players I can also recognise as being former FoGR players, but this isn't as accurate as the numbers above.
19 of the 55 current MeG players don't appear to have played either FoGR or FoG AM before.

Of the 40-odd FoGAM players who appeared at an event in 2017 but have yet to play FoG v3 in 2018, around 20 of them now appear in the ADLG rankings.

Thanks Tim. It's a bit different from Dave's "observations & chats" at tournaments.

Actually, it isn't different at all...

Of the 55 people who have played MeG at a UK event this year 34 of them have appeared in FoG rankings. Like I said, the evolutionary path was DBM -- FoG -- FoW -- MeG, some missed out the FoW stage. That is where the vast majority have come from.

Pretty much everybody who is playing MeG now has played FoG because in 2008 everybody moved over from DBM to FoG. Now that other rule systems have appeared, people have moved on from FoG. That is exactly what I said???

[vexillia]

Actually, it isn't different at all...

You said ...

MeG has not attracted many FoG players - this seems to be the FoG(R) and FoW crowd who are playing this game. ADLG has attracted the players who prefer DBM and most other players are playing FoG.

Now you say ..

Of the 55 people who have played MeG at a UK event this year 34 of them have appeared in FoG rankings. Like I said, the evolutionary path was DBM -- FoG -- FoW -- MeG, some missed out the FoW stage. That is where the vast majority have come from.

Pretty much everybody who is playing MeG now has played FoG because in 2008 everybody moved over from DBM to FoG. Now that other rule systems have appeared, people have moved on from FoG.

Stay frosty Tonto.

[nikgaukroger]

I suspect what Dave is getting at is that there aren't that many MeG players who jumped directly from FoG:AM to MeG, but there are quite a few who did play FoG:AM after moving from DBM but then moved onto FoW or something else and have now moved to MeG.

[ChrisTofalos]

... and whilst we are on the subject of privacy and the like, thanks Chris for posting tagged links to my name and personal page all over Facebook just now suggesting that I've said;

"the current field of Version 3 competitors in the UK has been increased by 20% by new players."

That's not really going to help promote FoGAM ...

Tim, when I started to type your name you Facebook profile name automatically appeared. If you didn't want that to happen why on earth is your profile public?

I actually paid you a compliment ("wargaming guru Tim Porter (of madaxeman fame)") and finished my post with a plug inviting people to attend Britcon - YOUR event!

A bit below the belt to turn that against me!

Incidentally, BEFORE you complained on here I went back and removed the link to your profile on all six wargames pages I posted on.

[madaxeman]

I am ONLY concerned with stopping the falling numbers of FOG players from continuing.

I've suggested changes to the aggressive scoring system and introducing handicaps.

Can't see much in the way of positive suggestions from either Tim (an ADLG devotee!) or Dave. In fact, all they seem to have contributed is negative, "you can't do this or you can't do that"-type comments.

Have they or anyone else actually got any other ideas that can help improve matters?

Lots of people have worked to create a new edition of the rules which addresses many of the perceived shortcomings of V2, and have managed to get it printed and published.
Dave & Pete have polled the community and as a result adjusted the competition scoring system to encourage/reward faster play in competitions.
Dave is posting battle reports in this forum, as are a few others.
Some are also sharing these reports on other sites and forums too.
Pete is organizing competitions in his area and getting his clubmates to enter as well as bringing in people from further afield - in fact Pete is probably single-handedly responsible for almost all of the "new" players on the AM circuit this year.

These all seem to work, and are (with the exception of the first 2) easily possible for anyone to do.

[madaxeman]

... I went back and removed the link to your profile on all six wargames pages I posted on.

Many thanks - like many of us, I do try and keep wargaming and real life separate for various reasons, hence the "madaxeman" page identity!

[vexillia]

I'm doing as much as I can. I support competition, I publicise FoG as much as I can and I speak to people to find out what they want.

I'm sure you do what you can Dave and I don't see anyone suggesting otherwise.

Do you honestly believe that there is an easy solution that would suddenly triple the number of FoG players? Do you not think that if there was something easy somebody would have thought of it by now? I mean we have all these other rulesets attempting to get as many players as they can, are they doing anything differently? If they were, then everybody else would instantly copy that solution or be consigned to oblivion.

Reading back through the thread, entertaining as it has been in parts, it seems to me that in an era of significant rules fragmentation it's all too easy for people to vote with their feet. Plus the solution to stemming a decline in any rule set will not be a single "magic bullet" but a series of positive steps and the elimination of factors that are likely to turn people away.

From your tone above I suspect that you've already tried all the positive things yet the decline continues. This only leaves eliminating some of the negatives.

Tim and Chris have already raised the cost of V3 as a disincentive but sadly there's nothing you can do about that now. I do know that in the 2018 ADLG survey the low cost of the rule book was a significant factor cited by many as to why they play ADLG. I suspect the cost of V3 has had a big impact and compounded other negative factors.

Chris has suggested that the scoring system was an area to look at. It's an interesting suggestion primarily because it's an area you control and reducing churn at the lower end of the rankings may foster more committed players in the medium term or at least stop them quitting. It may prove not to be so but it's certainly worth discussing.

A final note of caution. With small, self selecting and loose associations like the members of this forum and the slightly wider community of tournament FOG players (past & present) it's always important to guard against the possibility of groupthink and confirmation bias both of which will favour "mate's views" over that of "outsiders" (perceived or otherwise).

[vexillia]

Dave is posting battle reports in this forum, as are a few others.
Some are also sharing these reports on other sites and forums too.

Are they being publicised via Twitter & Facebook? If they are can you reply with the username and I will follow and retweet.

[madaxeman]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1726636790966631 FoGAM facebook group.

[vexillia]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1726636790966631 FoGAM facebook group.

Thanks but I'm not on Facebook anything public?