With packs of just four simultaneous matches one thread may suffice.
Sure, two threads for then smaller packs would be neater ...or sticking to the four-match packs and having simply more of them simultaneously that way.
But I had more in mind with the one-thread idea:
You remember "Seed elimination" was started first in GM and tolerated there for quite a while by the mods.
In Off-topic, which fewer people follow, two threads may be better as not everybody is interested in every match-up,
whereas in GM more than one thread of that kind simply won't be tolerated,
and furthermore the philosophy of only four matches at the same time would help ending the matches quickly, I think.
Many people always have a favorite even in GrandSlam 1st round matches. And if there is a pack you can as well vote simply in every match of it. Moreover, several people will probably (hopefully) play this game regularly. They will vote anyway. And with just one thread they also would have to vote (even if not the biggest fans) to keep things going on.
Given it works this game is far superior to "Seed elimination" and could have a future in GM.
I see your point. One thread it is.
Packs of 4 may be too little for the early rounds(32 packs in R1). Somebody would have to start a new pack. There would not be too many posters interested in doing so. It would be easier for the organizer(s) if there are lesser packs, so that the OP can be updated as much as possible(The detailed rules could be in post#2, for those interested. OP would only contain the present round, with the current pack highlighted). How about packs of 8 for R1 and R2, and 4 R3 onwards? 8 matches still isn't too much. Moreover, 8 matches in R1 would ensure that most of the participants would have at least one player they want to vote for in each pack.
7.) Incorrect votes further back then seven votes have to be regarded correct in any case.
It shall prevent the match scores from too many disturbing corrections or even disputes.
Better idea? ...The distance of "seven" is debatable of course, but imagine what could happen without this or a similar rule. Don't forget people can delete their voting-posts. (Why would they?)
This can be kept as a tentative rule when the game is started. If posters want it changed/removed we could do so.
Oh, how about that?:
9.) When voting always quote the respective previous voting-post!
...Well, like most of the other rules so this one shouldn't be applied so very strictly either, at least not at first.
My issue with this is that many posters may find it more convenient (easier/faster) to reply without quoting. If
the participants can stick to editing their posts when they see that someone has posted in the interim, we should not have much of an issue with wrong scores. A lot is also based on the assumption that users would not post random scores to troll the game.
Didn't know it was three there. It's tough to control; to check or to even keep in mind who voted three hours back.
One hour is simple, ...and if it turns out to be too short somehow, it can still be changed.
Let's keep that in mind for Off-topic, but in GM it won't be needed, I think.
Agree with both.
Hm, the differences and also the higher complexity with this scoring format (the same with my earlier idea from the other thread) might be too complicated.
Often people don't even read the OP.
At PYW participants were not even allowed to post the simple livescores ("in order to best saveguard the integrity of PYW").
I would stick to the simple and continous "1 vote = 1 game" format - at least for the first edition of this GrandSlam game(!) - and only increase the number of sets with the tournament rounds.
Smaller than best-of-nine ? Sure?
Well, okay, if you insist on.
However, when we really start in GM we probably won't have to cut it too much,
but I agree, let's have just one-set matches in the 1st round, at least this time!
Depending on the number of upsets - and also of participants - after this 1st round you can decide on the 2nd round format. And so on.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on this. I really wanted to have a format with each round having longer matches than the previous. But, that would reduce participation a lot
. We could have a PYW-like format till the SF. Something like this:
R1,R2,R3: 1 set. 1 vote=1 game.
R4,QF: Best-of-3sets. 1 vote=1 game.
SF: Best-of5 sets. 1vote=1game.
F(Mega Showdown):Best-of-3sets. 1 vote=1 point.
(All sets with TB, no difference of 2 required)
Yes, do it! I'm usually not so very active on MTF but I'll see what I can do. I'm definitely interested meanwhile.
And I hope after the first few packs of matches have been pushed through some other helpers will join.
Any participants who observe the voting process a little, would be helpful.
I'm guessing there should be good participation for the later rounds.
Why don't you do a trial version for a smaller tournament, like Chennai or Brisbane? See how it goes... I would play.
I would love to, but the PYW format for every tournament clearly doesn't work. Part of its charm would be having it only for the bigger tournaments. Here I was questioning the amount of participation we will get for this game for a GS. For 250 events, the participation would be close to none. Also, I don't want this format to become old before AO starts, that would be terrible.
However, do participate in the tournament for AO. If you have suggestions of how you would like the game to be, please give them.