Re: Elecciones presidenciales 2020
Publicado: Jue Ene 30, 2020 3:52 pm
Pako: Right. Let's call it 'NTO+'. In my experience, I've found that the roles of NTO and RTO are different in every country. In some countries, NTOs are operating almost as you describe, as well as uploading all tournament submissions and results for TOs. They're basically 'Mr. NAF Blood Bowl' in their country. In others, they're really just handing out dice and trophies and that's all they do. What you're suggesting is that we formalise the job description (we don't really right now), and also ask more of everyone. As you then go onto suggest, the difficulty is that this isn't what the current staff have signed up for, and actually, finding Mr. Blood Bowl for every country is tricky in an environment where we often struggle for volunteers. I can't stress that enough; basically, the NAF are limited by how many people are willing to get involved and help. We now have 5000 members, probably at least double the number we had when you joined. I bet you 50 Euro we don't have double the volunteers. I try and treat TD with all of the passion, enthusiasm and activity with which I treat my actual, real job (hence why I'm here talking to you when I should be working!). But I can't and don't expect everyone we have to put in the same effort.
I speak to Hacha on WhatsApp about tournaments pretty often, and he has recently agreed to take on a bit more responsibility for us (we'll announce this next month). I would be surprised and super-disappointed if he (or any NTO) did not feel like he could shout 'Hey Phil! My country thinks this needs to happen!' Because, if he did that, that would go straight into the next committee call. I trust and value our tournament staff. I listen if they talk.
On the major point: Just outline 'why' for me? Greater advertising for that tournament? In that case, if every country got a major, it may easily be lost in the noise. Do your big tournaments (REVA, Bilbali) really need more help? Or is it access to ranking points? Remember; part of the beauty of the glicko system is that it doesn't care about 'majors', so one of the benefits of these new rankings is that they don't penalise rankings chasers for living in a non-major country. Some think glicko > Elo, so I'm glad we have the new system.
dreamscreator: I'll bring up quarterly accounts with Paul at the next call and report back here. I think there's a lot to discuss on the next call, so my report back on this forum might be long.
I am confident that if I post tournament news on TFF and ask the NAF to Tweet / Facebook it, then UK coaches that care and follow the news will get it. If it takes us opening more social media accounts to get the same traction here, then maybe we will.
GW: Ahh, the million dollar subject. The NAF absolutely cannot win, here. I think the Annual Review is the very best we can do. We give it time, we review stuff for inclusion, we allow TOs to use new stuff if they like before review. If we were more GW-friendly, we'd piss off half of the members, less GW-friendly the other half (and crucially, anyone new). Whatever I say about GW, we lose. I'd love to satisfy everyone, but cannot.
Again - super sorry I cannot post in Spanish, but this is good stuff. Please keep it coming.
I speak to Hacha on WhatsApp about tournaments pretty often, and he has recently agreed to take on a bit more responsibility for us (we'll announce this next month). I would be surprised and super-disappointed if he (or any NTO) did not feel like he could shout 'Hey Phil! My country thinks this needs to happen!' Because, if he did that, that would go straight into the next committee call. I trust and value our tournament staff. I listen if they talk.
On the major point: Just outline 'why' for me? Greater advertising for that tournament? In that case, if every country got a major, it may easily be lost in the noise. Do your big tournaments (REVA, Bilbali) really need more help? Or is it access to ranking points? Remember; part of the beauty of the glicko system is that it doesn't care about 'majors', so one of the benefits of these new rankings is that they don't penalise rankings chasers for living in a non-major country. Some think glicko > Elo, so I'm glad we have the new system.
dreamscreator: I'll bring up quarterly accounts with Paul at the next call and report back here. I think there's a lot to discuss on the next call, so my report back on this forum might be long.
I am confident that if I post tournament news on TFF and ask the NAF to Tweet / Facebook it, then UK coaches that care and follow the news will get it. If it takes us opening more social media accounts to get the same traction here, then maybe we will.
GW: Ahh, the million dollar subject. The NAF absolutely cannot win, here. I think the Annual Review is the very best we can do. We give it time, we review stuff for inclusion, we allow TOs to use new stuff if they like before review. If we were more GW-friendly, we'd piss off half of the members, less GW-friendly the other half (and crucially, anyone new). Whatever I say about GW, we lose. I'd love to satisfy everyone, but cannot.
Again - super sorry I cannot post in Spanish, but this is good stuff. Please keep it coming.