FAQ  •  Register  •  Login

Nationals is broken!

Moderator: Wraith

Do you agree with the opinions expressed in this document

Strongly, this really needed to be said
0
No votes
Kinda, I agree with most parts but not others
0
No votes
50\50, it has both good and bad points
0
No votes
Not really, there's a few good points but most of it is crap
10
83%
Hell no, you're off your rocker
2
17%
 
Total votes : 12
<<

Disgruntled Memeber

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Posts: 7

Joined: 19 Feb 2018, 23:01

Site Rep: No Location Represented

Post 19 Feb 2018, 23:43

Nationals is broken!

I hate to do this but unfortunately this needs to be said.

I am posting this anonymously to remove any bias people from other other states may have towards the opinions expressed in this document and to remove myself from any persecution I may face from the expressed views. Also forgive spelling and punctuation, it isn't my forte.

Feel free to comment, I may reply if you make a good point.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_qaF63RmYcth3RML7F7p3dwJluNx9RvCBiHxhosuQOQ/edit?usp=sharing
<<

Azrael

User avatar

Zone Poster
Zone Poster

Site Admins
Site Admins

P&C Representative
P&C Representative

Posts: 252

Joined: 25 Mar 2014, 17:01

Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Site Rep: SA

Post 20 Feb 2018, 01:40

Re: Nationals is broken!

So, that was definitely a decent bit to read.

There's a wide variety of topics that you covered in there, so I'm going to do my best to address what I can – all from my own personal opinion. The ODT attached to the post is just an easier to read version of the below, with some bold and italics.

Firstly, I'd say stagnant is a little bit of a stretch, where organisational things are concerned. Looking at how things have progressed since 2012 (when I started) til now (Transparency, new professionalism, structure & systems, volunteers, etc.), it paints a picture of trial-and-error, and a tad reactionary in a lot of ways, but stagnation isn't what I particularly see. Admittedly, the whole "too many teams is next year's problem" has been two years in a row, but it's probably the hardest issue to tackle – so it's not overly surprising.

Regarding the association – I know it's been done before, and it turned out not-great, so people are cautious of the same result, and that's part of the reason that it hasn't come to fruition. I'm one of the people that put their hands up to help with the newest efforts at a federal association – but I wasn't spearheading it, and I have next to no legal knowledge (not to mention I now work like 50 – 55 hr every week, and some other personal issues, so I haven't had a huge amount of time.)... so I guess that's my bad, at least partially.

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that it is going to be a fun or social event, in preference to competition. It's our top level event, and we're at critical mass. Everyone knows it, it's just the details that aren't clear cut (e.g. do we make nats a stepping stone, and have a few days where only the top teams play? Or do we create a seperate social comp, etc. Insert 10 more ideas that people have had, that all have their merits). At this point, it's just down to trying to pick the method that benefits everything the most – this is still under sigificant debate from all quarters, and I don't think anyone's particularly concrete on the best way of moving forwards – again, this has been sort of reactionary.

The rulebook has become mammoth indeed (I think "despite the portrayal of extensive amounts of time being put into this" is a bit of a disingenous assertion). I, myself, in my committee term, dedicated a decent chunk of time to going over everything in the rulebook, and questioning several items that I thought didn't need to be in there anymore. I think I was also the first one (at least since 2012) to institute a rulebook changes highlight document. I also stripped out several other things into associated documents. I can appreciate that maybe it hasn't taken the form that you'd personally think is optimal, but there's definitely been heavy work on it. RE: people cheating from loopholes, and the other stuff you suggest we add – yeah, I agree. All of that should be added, and yes, we should work to eliminate all grey areas... which we have been doing as much as we can to do so. Only so many hours in the day and etc. I'd personally love to do more work on it, but, again – time.

RE: Code of Conduct... we've had one that's not exactly legally binding... but we're not a legal organisation or association, so insofar as justification for punishment, and disbarring people... I don't think we're entirely uncovered here. Again, of course improvement can be made (as we only instigated the thing in 2017), but to think everything that's put into practice will be 100% perfect from the get-go is a little bit unrealistic from a small group of volunteers. This is the second iteration that's been used (which has been cut down extensively, by the looks – possibly from the many detractors of the last one, most of which had not-very-constructive-feedback as their platform).

So the Committee paragraphs give me a good opportunity to talk about my experience on the Committee, and how this seems to me. Firstly, I never really wanted to be on the committee – but I became determined that some things were needed to change / be improved, and I've always more or less thought "be the change you want to see in the world" is cliche, but a good mantra... plus several people revved me up, and badgered me to put up. I put my name in, not expecting to get voted in (especially when we were already hosting nats that year, why would anyone stack two Adelaide reps on in the same year?). Imagine my surprise (and, I am honestly being 100% truthful, I did not think I would be voted in) when I was called out as being on the committee. I then was reminded, in a mental train wreck fashion, that I had absolutely, positively, no idea what I was doing – and that I hated being in charge of things, or leading (which many people will likely think is totally not true, considering my recent stint of always captaining teams, and being in charge of things) – but it tends not to be in my nature.

Part of the reason that I think I got elected (which may be totally wrong), is at Brisbane I became very dissatisfied with how covering was being policed. I personally went around to every other Head Ref, and had a conversation (which mostly consisted of my strong arming them into answering a yes or no question about raptor arms), which I hoped would instigate change. It was also my first venture into gauging public opinion. Most everyone was in favour of more clarity regarding covering (with some cautioning that if we regulate things too much, we detract from freedom of play – which is valid, but I don't necessarily agree with.)
My three main focuses were
1. Transparency (within reason)
2. Trying to minimise grey areas (like covering)
3. Removing any "unwritten" material.

Now, you say that transparency of the commitee is "clear as mud" – which I assume you're talking about Albury's committee, but you've written it generalising the committees in the past as well, so I'm going to err on the side of committees in general... I did my best to note every meeting we had (we had 3 or 4, each was 5 – 7 hours in length). There was two things I omitted from the notes... one was a very sensitive issue regarding two players. The other was another sensitive issue regarding one player. For obvious privacy and moral reasons, I won't speak any further on those subjects – but they were omitted for a reason. Every other part of the meetings, I personally noted down, along with implementing two scribes to do summaries as well, and keep things impartial. In addition, I recorded all the meetings (though I swear a little bit sometimes, which is one of the reasons that the recordings haven't been made public record).

I can't speak as to whether I got elected from popularity (I definitely know there's some people out there that hate my guts, for a variety of reasons. Some warranted, others less so). I definitely know that I'm not the most qualified, nor the most experienced. I wouldn't even say I'm a high level player.

I gave progress updates, and probably most importantly – I took opinion polls at various times throughout the years, and immediately published the results publicly.

Regarding organisational platforms, etc. I've personally never liked Trello. Any attempts to use it have frustrated me, and it doesn't feel organisational, as much as bothersome – though that's obviously anecdotal. Other committees have used it in the past, with some success. My burst-nature of doing work made it semi-unproductive for me, though. A personality flaw of mine, I suppose.

The forum is a difficult one. It started as a non-P&C thing, now it's more of a P&C thing. Forums have fallen out of fashion with the advent of social media, and PhpBB has never been the most sophisticated forum engine (but hey, it's free and requires minimal upkeep!)

Ultimately, there isn't any binding agreements for the Commitee (which is part of what I wanted to do – but didn't get the time to do on my year... create a scope of powers doc. Apparently it's in the works, though, even without me.)

Regarding the concerns about Facebook... while I understand the perspective... in practice, for me, it's a bit aggravating that some very few people are determined not to use Facebook (this causes a variety of inconveniences, non-lasertag-people-related) – as Google, and most large sites sell most analytic data, along with Facebook having tendrils that reach into unaffiliated websites... so unless you run a VPN, several tracker-blocking extensions, probably TOR Browser, and MAC Address spoofing... one way or another, someone's gonna get your data. At a certain point, you have to be realistic and think about "Do I really care if an indian IT company knows that I like trampolines and The Beatles?". I don't think it's particularly a huge deal that Facebook "sells group information" regarding ways to tighten up our competitive lasertag rulebook... but I can absolutely see how someone could argue that I'm trading away my freedom & privacy for convenience... but seems more the cry of someone who refuses to adapt for the sake of stubbornness (the only argument I've had with anyone who has been able to counter with for not using Facebook has been "They sell my data!" "So? Why do you care?" "...BECAUSE IT'S MINE! ONLY I GET TO SELL IT" [this is a conversation I actually had once]). As a sidenote, hey doesn't Google Maps use your data too? But whatever, I don't really have a horse in this race, it just bothers me I suppose.

Regarding the terms & members & etc, all of this was discussed (and I'm pretty sure I wrote minutes that I then publicly posted, saying most of this...) but we didn't get time to implement it, unfortunately. It wasn't quite ready for a smooth transition (time, time, time!).
Meetings are held irregularly, in part because "we're still working on this" is a tad informal. Obviously this can be better, and should be regulated – because other associations, groups, etc do status meetings and whatever. I don't disagree with any of that, and I feel like it's all in the pipeline of stuff to get rolling. In my year, our chat had:

- Committee Members
- x2 Scribes (Due to various life stuff, I ended up doing a fair bit of the scribing anyway)
- x1 Web Master (Whomever was running the website at the time)
- x1 Tournament Advisor (To help advise with number crunching, running draws, etc)
- x1 Media Head (Though this was also a committee member – so doesn't really count!)

Regarding this year... Jamie Holmes from P&C Micros (Zone Laser Tag Head Office) is running Media, and he's in the commitee chats... so... invalid point I guess? Or are you determined they should be a voting member?

"being done relating to something that would involve the media team that are completely mishandled, done poorly or reflect the entire community in a bad light." This is so ambiguous that I can't even respond to it... I suppose the things I can think of is...

- One team had a callous remark made in Sinc's list. It was shortly thereafter fixed.
- I personally didn't like a few comments made in the post-nats stream, I felt they were uncalled for. This is semi because I thought it was agreed that all media would go through the Committee, they had an official seal, and I saw none of it before it went live. However, it has been argued that most Football shows have very similar content – and it's a regularly accepted thing in sports... so I dunno. There's definitely been valid criticism, and the subsequent streams have been getting progressively much better. Again, we come back to "If at first you don't succeed, try try again".

Regarding all the other stuff under the Media Team heading... I've already sort of addressed it. Jamie's in charge of the Media, and the people shall rejoice. Strictly speaking, I think that taking on so many roles in addition to being on the Committee is probably not the best method, but we had a lack of manpower in my year, so we all took on extra responsibilities, and did the best we could. As time goes on, and more people get trained, these issues should hopefully evaporate.

Regarding Team Facebook Pages... pretty sure this is covered by the whole "don't bring the sport into disrepute". Someone was banned in like... 2014? for posting something bad on Facebook. There's precedent for this already.

With the whole numbers heading... I am not a mathmatical guy. A lot of this has been put forward, so I won't rehash, or bring up alternatives, as again, it's heavily under discussion. What I will say, is again, I don't think anyone's under the illusion that this isn't our biggest current issue (bigger than covering :O ). It's been put off, and is now a critical mass, this is obvious. It will have to be dealt with, and it'll probably be the first thing dealt with. It's not so much an elephant in the room, as we are being digested by the elephant, and are very aware of it.



So, with your conclusion, begins my conclusion.
I have to express that I'm a little bit disappointed that you feel you need to be anonymous in order to convey good points. I try to have more faith in people than that. I've always tried to promote logical discussion, and I always try and convey my stances openly. There are some state based stereotypes I'm aware of (I've had it said to me before that ACT players tend to be deliberately difficult, Queensland players deliberately try to get away with breaking rules, or push them to their breaking instead of playing in the spirit of the game, and WA players tend to do anything to win). I try to exclude these assertions from people when I judge what people are saying, and how much merit I find in it personally. I think there is a huge amount to be gained from open and honest dialogue.

I definitely don't think we've stagnated, and I don't think we're broken... I think the opposite. We're more progressive than ever, we have more people wanting to help out than ever, and we're making strides every year to progressing into proper sport-hood (that's not a word).

What I do think our problem is, is attitude. We have people who are contrarian for the sake of being so (see: all the people who refused to become qualified as refs, by principle), we have people who only get involved when they want to criticise, we have people who demand others do work – but don't try to contribute anything of their own, and we have a significant portion of selfishness. Another showcase of this, is most of the ridiculously self-righteous and elitist comments that came with the timing debate, and even with the ascensions cut-offs. The amount of persuasive (manipulative) language was ridiculous, as was some of the rudeness of some of the private responses that were received (yes, I read them all.)

Obviously, I don't know who you are, so I can't use your own participation as reference (which is no doubt by design)... but you call for a lot that must be done, yet the only sort of solutions you've provided have been some basic outlines for team cap solutions. You don't seem to have re-written the rulebook, made a scope of powers document, or any of the other things you call for. Moreover, you seem to use a fair bit of persuasive language ("monstrosity" re: rulebook, for instance), which is designed to polarise people, when in almost all of these cases, it's far more shades-of-grey than black-and-white in regards to the situations, and our progress as a sport.

Overall, I find it far more likely that people will ignore most of what you've written due to you being anonymous, than if you'd posted under your name. When I was on the committee, I did my best to fully consider all opinions based upon their merit – not on the people who submitted them. As much as people might like to fling various bio-materials at people, I think most people do the same thing – though there's definitely some people who ignore things that aren't posted by people they like.

I've always tried to be as self aware as possible, and honest with my faults (and boy, am I certainly well aware that I have quite a few) – but I always try to maintain honesty, being approachable, and always considering what people say fairly.

I don't want to be rude, and I don't want to be abrupt, because I know that this post was made out of a desire to do the right thing, meaning well, and for the good of the sport (which, I believe, we all want at heart) – but I really do believe that this has achieved the opposite, which is a shame, because I really do agree with some of your points, and your view for the larger scale of the thing.

I believe progress will be won by personable people, standing tall, fighting for what they believe the right changes are, and diplomatically stating their views, and compromising.

I know you won't – but I really encourage you to step forward, account for who you are, and if you really think these are all valid points, campaign to your fullest for progress. Elect to the committee, talk to people (talk their ear off), understand people, dialogue, dialogue, dialogue.

Finally, a step in the right direction isn't always eloquent, sophisticated, or graceful. We'll make mistakes, but the true measure of us is how we work to improve our mistakes.


Sorry for the wall of text, I figured such a long post was worthy of a considered response.
Attachments
My response.odt
(28.74 KiB) Downloaded 137 times
I aim to misbehave.

"Hey... Isn't P&C in Melbourne?" - Pal, 2012 (On Subtlety)
"And I will pay $50 to get out of Jail again, because this game is a ****" - Vector, 2013 (On Monopoly)
"I do mistrust dinosaurs..." - Rep, 2014 (On Forum Policy)
<<

Azrael

User avatar

Zone Poster
Zone Poster

Site Admins
Site Admins

P&C Representative
P&C Representative

Posts: 252

Joined: 25 Mar 2014, 17:01

Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Site Rep: SA

Post 20 Feb 2018, 02:16

Re: Nationals is broken!

Oh, I forgot to mention...

At the terminus of my Committee Term, I also handed along a zip of every single document I generated, touched, or saved - just as a complimentary point regarding continuance.
I aim to misbehave.

"Hey... Isn't P&C in Melbourne?" - Pal, 2012 (On Subtlety)
"And I will pay $50 to get out of Jail again, because this game is a ****" - Vector, 2013 (On Monopoly)
"I do mistrust dinosaurs..." - Rep, 2014 (On Forum Policy)
<<

Bootza

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Site Admins
Site Admins

Past Committee Member
Past Committee Member

Site Operator
Site Operator

Posts: 42

Joined: 25 Mar 2014, 14:30

Site Rep: QLD

Post 20 Feb 2018, 10:55

Re: Nationals is broken!

Thank you for your largely misinformed views Mr/Mrs/Ms "/Rant". My personal opinion is that if someone is willing to have strong opinions such as the ones presented, they should stand by them by making themselves known. Posting a potentially disruptive public message for the whole world to see which criticizes the work of a collective of committed and hard working volunteers that spend a large portion of their discretionary time on progressing the tournament, and not actually offering to contribute their own time, is nothing short of a cowardly act.

Is the committee perfect, no. Are they doing the best they can with what the limited resources they have, imo, absolutely yes. My guess is that you have never actually sat on the committee in recent times. Any recent committee member can attest to the level of care and energy that is given to doing the best we can for the community.

I will not address all of your arguments, as it is not a productive use of time, however i will say this. If you think something can be improved, create a proposal document, and send it to the committee for review. There are numerous examples of non-committee members having significant impact on the progress of our sport. eg Tricky has created the white list for fitness devices, Mopar helps out with tech matters, Doug creates schedules and grids, Bensen this year created a Fantasy League, Samus is helping with Live Stream. The biggest challenge for the committee is addressing all the issues with limited resources, the more people we have contributing the better.

So in conclusion, next time instead of spending 2 hours creating a "lets have a whinge" document, why don't you create a draft glossary of terms and send it to the committee for review. That's a really good idea that we could totally utilise.
<<

Sadlamp

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Posts: 1

Joined: 20 Feb 2018, 09:40

Site Rep: NSW

Post 20 Feb 2018, 11:52

Re: Nationals is broken!

Through-out this little article ill address all issues listed and my stance on them. I am not fighting for or against you but simply stating my opinion on each of these as on a brief first read I definitely think there is a lot of good points being made.

The Rulebook

Addressing the issue of the rule book. There are so many things I agree with but I don't think that having a glossary defining key terms within the rule book would make a difference at this stage. These sports that you are comparing laser tag to are sports that are well established so obviously in comparison to a sport that is unknown and is unpaid you will have a lot of negative differentiation. AFL is a sport that has been around since 1850's and wasn't even designed as a sport but more as a training drill for the worse sport that exists (cricket). AFL did only take 9 years to develop a nationals scene as the market of AFL was literally everyone that played cricket so there was already a large amount of people playing it and then again it was almost 140 years later that they had more than 12 teams play. At this current point I believe that laser tag needs to develop a lot more publicity before having a glossary is needed. With the it being refs discretion the ref has to look out for so many individual rules that it is near impossible to keep track of all things. assistant refs in soccer only technically need to look for one thing and that is when the ball is out of play. And referees need to pretty much just focus where the ball is. it would be like having two soccer balls in a game of soccer and it would be really hard to focus on both balls and make every call. I think it is black and white but due to the fact that there is so much to watch you cant spend too much time watching an individual player because there are many other things you can miss.

Code of Conduct

As with the rule book I think that the order that you're saying isn't right. I believe that it needs to be a more publicised sport before things like the code of conduct can be something that is implemented on a national level. Obviously there is code of conduct on a site level and penalties that apply should these rules be broken. I do definitely agree that whilst at a comp of any level or wearing items of clothing that represents the sport then code of conduct should definitely apply but at the level we are currently at I don't see much use in it.

The Committee

It's a valid point that the committee can be based off of more a popularity contest than a what can they do for the committee. That being said, people who are high tier players are generally people who have played for a long time and have a greater understanding of the sport. As they have been around for longer it is more likely to vote for someone that you are familiar with rather then someone who hasn't played for long and isn't a well known player. I know if I ran for committee people wouldn't vote for me. I believe I am more than dedicated to the sport, i have only been playing laser tag competitively since late april last year but already i have been to 11 comps, travelled to 4 different states playing as well as started a competitive scene in a new site and am on the verge of starting a competitive scene at two more sites even though one of those sites is laserforce it still falls under the laser tag banner. I believe i have the passion for the growth of the sport but i know that no one knows me and i don't have the proper fundamental knowledge of a nationals or the way the committee works to be able to which is why i wont run for the committee, maybe in a couple of years i will but i don't know. Unlike other sports the laser tag committee is not a paid position. If the position is paid I can assure you that the committee would be dedicating a lot more time into making this sport and the sport would accelerate at an astounding rate but as it isn't a paid sport and as Azrael said, time is an issue because people have jobs and its not worth people spending more time on the committee then their own job.

Media Team

An interesting read on the media team, unfortunately since i have not attended a nationals i cant agree or disagree on what has happened at past nationals. From an outsiders perspective i thought that the video was really good and it got me pumped to play to the point where before every comp i watch that video right before i go in because it gets me so pumped to play and perform and i know i perform so much better because it gets me so excited. I know for media purpose i would be very much so interested in getting involved in the coming years. the only reason i didn't get involved for this nats is because it is my first and i want to see what it is like without having an increased responsibility. I know for the next nats i would love to get involved as i have ran a promotions company for six years now and i have done a lot of work with on camera etc so id be happy to do what i can to work to my strengths to further get the sport out there.

Numbers

The issue of numbers was going to be an issue to hit as every sport has. the only difference is laser tag isn't a sport we can pay people for. The solution is going to upset people. doesn't matter what the decision that the committee makes is, someone isn't going to be happy. Before you can cut it to top 33 teams there needs to be an established scene in each of the states otherwise you will slowly kill off the scene in states. My honest opinion is we should get rid of Womens, Masters, Juniors and then lastly triples. Straight cut off, yeah it sucks because we are going to cut out the range of what makes nationals but the reality is the main event is teams and that is one of the main reasons we come. Next we need to cut off the sports that select out certain people out (Juniors, Womens and masters) and then if there is still not enough time get rid of Triples the test rat game mode. I also believe that we should limit the international teams from 2 to 1 because in the end this is the AUSTRALIASIAN Nationals. I also believe that one of the things that should be implemented is that to qualify for nationals you need to be attending leagues on a regular basis (obviously with some exceptions that should be outlined by the committee eg. work)

Conclusion

In conclusion i believe that there are valid points you are bringing up but i think there need to be more solutions offered up rather than just issues. The things you are saying do need to happen but there are somethings that are not able or needed to be done until it moves into a well known sport or a paid sport. I would encourage you to run to be a member of the committee to try your best to do what needs to be done for the future and represent the needs of the players of the sport as you seem to be someone who has ambition for the future of the sport but maybe just went about it the wrong way. I think Bootza puts it well that it would have been more beneficial to form a documents with ideas and solutions. As well as the document with all the glossary is a great idea to put to the committee.

Sadlamp
<<

Pain

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Posts: 6

Joined: 11 Feb 2016, 22:12

Site Rep: QLD

Post 20 Feb 2018, 12:26

Re: Nationals is broken!

I can quickly say i agree with the people above me in the fact that the article you have written while potentially raising points for discussion has gone about it the entirely wrong way. The work done by the committees of past and present has been extremely valuable. The reality of the committee is that presently it is 5 different people who may all have very different opinions on how things should progress forward this results in a lot of discussion but potentially little in the way of "things achieved" from an outsiders perspective.

Ill admit as a person in the past who didn't have all the information it is very easy to be critical of the job being done but the reality is many of these people who are no more than elected volunteers have given over 100 hours of their time in the past year for you to sit back behind the veil of anonymity and attempt to tear down what they have done. Everyone is working for a better sport at the end of the day, everyone...period.

As there is nothing else that hasn't already been said i will finish by adding that. The way to change something is not to sit on the outside and throw stones at it. If you are unhappy with something get inside, be a part of it understand how the process works and what everyone is doing behind then scenes and be a part of a positive change instead of creating more negativity and complaining that things aren't being done

Theres really nothing more
<<

Disgruntled Memeber

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Posts: 7

Joined: 19 Feb 2018, 23:01

Site Rep: No Location Represented

Post 20 Feb 2018, 14:21

Re: Nationals is broken!

OK, incoming wall of text…

I have broken this down mostly into replies to each person for clarity and is not meant as an attack on that person’s comments just a reply to their views and clarification on my stance.

Azrael
It is a mistake to say all committees we have had have been pointless, there are certainly some years that have been better than others. So yes I may have been overstepping when I said things have stagnated a little. It would be wrong to state that the effort that you and select others (I am trying as much as possible to keep names out of this to remove bias) have put into the scene from the committee hasn’t made any progress. The problem is there are others who we can’t see as doing anything. I was making a stronger reference to the current committee over the past ones but the point still stands. Your time on there brought about a massive change in the portrayal of information to the community with more frequent meeting minutes and a showing of what was actually being worked on. Unfortunately after you left that rapidly diminished. I also completely understand keeping details under wraps about discussions pertaining to very sensitive issues about select players so no qualms there however a note in minutes about discussion of sensitive issues or the like wouldn’t be amiss, but that’s just nit-picky and irrelevant. My pick of trello was merely a suggestion, it’s the only one I know and have limited experience with, there are probably others out there but am unaware of any.

Your mention of the forum (and incidentally your involvement in this) now being a P&C thing touches on another topic I forgot to mention. P&C’s involvement in the sport. A sport cannot\should not be owned by a company. Sherrin don’t own the AFL, Adidas don’t own soccer, P&C or LaserForce shouldn’t own Laser Tag. A company can sponsor an event but its involvement from there should be strictly limited in regards to their sponsorship arrangement. I get that this has become a dual use forum but that should not prevent it from being used to engage with the community. This isn’t an attack on you or anyone else from P&C who is engaged with the community, it’s a good thing that we have people from P&C that do, merely pointing out that the people that make the equipment don’t own the sport.

On the whole facebook thing, I have used facebook in past but just couldn’t stomach the tracking and the way it snakes its tentacles into as many aspects of your life in ways that even a VPN, adblockers, script blockers and MAC spoofing can prevent. I get that it’s a convenience thing but I’m pretty sure no other committee handles its matters through a platform as invasive as that. But as you said, off-topic.

Yes the whole player numbers issue is a thing, as you mention as the elephant digesting us. I do hope it is the very first thing worked on by the committee and they come to a conclusion very quickly so states\sites\teams have enough time to get themselves sorted and prepped for next nationals.

I do very strongly feel that someone involved with media should be voted on for the committee, that way there is some level of authority with how it is handled. I should have mentioned a couple of specifics with the media team’s lack of management and handling of assets. The password for the Twitch ZLTAC channel was apparently lost for pre-nats when that was being streamed yet people who were managing the stream at nationals were apparently not asked for the password. Some test footage from nationals when cameras and lighting was being calibrated found its way into the hands of people who were not even involved with the media team. These are no small issues, it shows a major mishandling of assets and should never have happened. The team facebook page is more than just bad things being posted on the pages, it’s the people attached to those posts. Social media is a sprawling web of connections, anyone on a team with a facebook page needs to ensure that their own profile is also appropriate for people who might be viewing the team. We engage with a young audience so any people attached to the public face of the sport need to be seen as age appropriate. This is the reason I mentioned committee involvement in this or a strict code of conduct to cover it.

Bootza
Oh boy, this is the exact reason why this was anonymous. If one of the biggest names in Australian laser tag has such a targeted and attacking response like this how is someone to make such an expansive list of issues known without fear of persecution? Can you honestly state your post would be any different if I had stated my name? I did this anonymously to remove bias and generate discussion out in the open. Is what I did disruptive? A little, yes. Does it have people talking? Yes! This was the whole point of my post, to get the community talking about the issues we have in the lead up to the committee election and give the nominees something to campaign about. Your post also gives me quite a bit to unpack.

I do apologise that some of the things I focused on in this (namely associations) are things I believe you personally worked on and I wasn’t meaning to attack them or you specifically. While it is true I have not sat on the committee in recent times I have spoken to and discussed some of these issues with a couple of people who have and share similar views to me. While I cannot say I know all the inner workings of it I have enough of an idea to know things aren’t right. There are things I want to say here but cannot without giving away who I am so unfortunately they will go unsaid but it is enough to say that I do have some experience in these matters.

Also at no point in my post did I downplay the efforts of the non-committee volunteers. My focus was entirely on those we elect to drive us forward. I don’t know where you pulled that information from but it wasn’t my post. I do make a small reference to the people that volunteered their time and equipment to the media team stating that much of it couldn’t have happened without them. I will make comment to the people you mentioned though. Firstly to Doug and Mopar, without these two people nationals would probably be a shambles. The amount of time, effort and energy they put in every year to keep the show running is incredible and I’m sure we all thank them very much for it. Tricky’s efforts in going through all the devices people wear these days checking what can and can’t be worn in the maze creates a nice clear cut list of what is acceptable and what isn’t. Benson’s efforts with basedump, and the stream last year are amazing and really pushed us forward as a sport people can interact with. And last but not least Samus taking the reins with the live stream which is no small task in running as shown by Benson last year.

If I had the time to create the documents you mentioned to submit to the committee I probably would have but I wanted this discussion out and happening before nationals and had already spent a couple of weeks on it researching and reviewing. The final rulebook was released in the middle of this which meant I had to go back over parts of it and check if anything changed that might have affected what I wrote. So the 2 hours you suggest I spent on this is very much off the mark. I will potentially be drafting up some documentation on a code of conduct and\or glossary of terms or rulebook reinterpretation depending on how the elections go.

Sadlamp
Thankyou for your post, as your first post it makes me happy to see what I have done is engaging not only long time players but newer ones too, this is what I wanted to see.

Your position on the rulebook and code of conduct is probably best explained with an analogy. It’s like a teenager trying to get their first car. They can’t get a car because they need a job to afford it but they can’t get a job because they need a car to get there. Why wait until we get more recognised to finish the rulebook when we can do it now and clarify all the un-written rules and content.

Your outsiders view on the media team is good and it’s great to hear that you are able to get something out of it. By the sounds of it you have a significant amount of experience in and around media so your expertise would be a much valued asset to the media team, definitely put your name forward to volunteer next year.

Numbers again are at least something everyone seems to agree on needs to be dealt with. I do find it interesting that you would remove Womens, Masters and Juniors ahead of Triples despite the later freeing up the most time. Our nationals has typically been pretty open to international teams in past with a “the more the merrier” approach so I left 2 slots for international teams to keep things open. However seeing as it’s been a while since an international team came to our event there wouldn’t really be any harm in dropping the limit to one but the unused international slots would go to local teams anyway. You are correct in stating teams should have a local qualification process (some kind of league) and this is something that would be hopefully implemented by state associations in future.

Pain
My aim was to generate discussion on some divisive subjects, no matter how this was presented it was going to be the wrong way of doing it. I just selected the best method at my disposal to create unbiased discussion and as expected there are those who don’t agree with it.

I know things can take a while to be achieved with 5 different people with different views and can take a while for change to actually appear but my issue is we aren’t even seeing anything from a discussion standpoint. Meeting minutes aren’t being released so we have no proof of how often things are being discussed or what is being discussed. I also wasn’t trying to tear down what work has been done. Without the committee we wouldn’t have the organisation of the nationals event. I just feel things have been too slow of late in regards to stuff other than the usual rulebook re-write to suit the host site, organisation of registration and the usual stuff that goes into setting up the event.

I am aware of the perception of it looking like I am just sitting on the outside throwing stones from behind a veil of anonymity but if I were to run for committee then my election campaign wouldn’t be much different. A bunch of hard truths that need to be discussed and dealt with just with my name attached. Would you vote for someone with that kind of campaign? I don’t think many people would vote for someone with such harsh views of the current climate, no matter how much they might be on point. Like I mentioned in reply to Bootza, if I had the time to create some documentation on the changes that could be implemented I would but I wanted this out before nationals and will be looking into doing such. The results of which will be posted to the forums (likely anonymously) for everyone to see.


PS: /rant isn’t an alias, it’s net jargon for someone ending an opinion piece on something they don’t agree with
<<

NiteMareRose

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Posts: 1

Joined: 20 Feb 2018, 14:55

Site Rep: NSW

Post 20 Feb 2018, 15:07

Re: Nationals is broken!

Reading through all of this I do see the light that is trying to be brought forth but words without actions just fall on deaf ears.

I do agree a lot of the stuff you mentioned is a problem and it can be fixed. But it’s not going to be fixed that easily. Things of this scale takes time and since it is a volunteer only and not actually a paid role people have to find time out of their 40+ our work day.

I know for myself who works 60+ hours a week and still tries to run a competitive scene at my site (code red).

I’m sure a lot of my players know that I’m not perfect and I may not run my leagues night as they would themselves. But I try to run that on top of working my huge work load. So I can image the stress load the committee members are under.

Once again I go agree with what you have posted but you have only really just had a rant and didn’t give any actual help towards making it better.

Structuring the committee using Trello is a fantastic idea I do use that for work and I know it works wonders.

Making the rule book black and white and eliminating the fret is a huge feat and will only take time to complete. As grey is very strong especially with how human nature is. If we can get away with something we push the limits and find ways around it.

But I do believe what you set out to do has been completed as people are talking about it. So next step is action. Show us what you think would be better rather then just saying what could be better.
 
PostThis post was deleted by Happy member on 20 Feb 2018, 20:43.
<<

Lolance

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Posts: 22

Joined: 08 May 2014, 20:09

Location: Victoria

Site Rep: VIC

Post 21 Feb 2018, 19:11

Re: Nationals is broken!

For fun I tried a TL;DR. Sorry if I deleted any salient key points that weren't speculative or needless posturing, assertions etc.

Why Nationals is Broken (an opinion piece)
Lance edit - 21/02/2018
Change log: Removed most opinions. Removed words that were otiose. Added one word (un) to correct what I perceived to be a typo.

We often speak about how we want the recognition of the greater public so we can become recognised the same way professional athletes and e-sports players do to grow our sport. We need to decide once and for all if “Nationals” is to be a fun event or an actual competition. If we go the fun route then not much really needs to change. If this is to be an actual competition that we want to take further into becoming a fully recognised sport then we have a lot of work to do.

The Rulebook: If we are to become a sport this needs to be re-written to define all aspects of the game we play so there is no ambiguity in terminology or rules.

Code of conduct: We do not have an official code of conduct. People recognised as laser tag players should conduct themselves with some manner of respect as to not bring themselves or the sport into a bad light.

The Committee: Transparency is key. Players we need to see that our elected committee is actually doing what we elected them to do. We should only have half of the committee rotated out every year making each position a 2 year stint. This ensures that any projects that are currently in the works still have someone there from the previous year to see that they are not dropped and forgotten.

Meetings also need to be more regular and minutes released when they are held, at the minimum meetings should be held once a month. If a meeting is missed or skipped (due to lack of members being able to attend) then this should also be released to the public as to which members were not able to attend.

Media Team: This needs management. A post comp review should not be slamming a player or team’s failings or shortcomings but rather giving constructive neutral feedback on how that player performed using stats and what may have attributed to their performance either good or bad. For this to be fair we would ideally use guest speakers to talk about teams they played more regularly (similar in ladder position during cascades and ascensions) to get a better idea on how they performed.

Team facebook pages can be a good thing to grow a team’s recognition and support. This could be covered under the code of conduct mentioned to set some rules on what is considered appropriate.

Numbers: There are a lot of us. That only looks to grow in years to come. This is causing an (in) ability to run a fair and balanced competition. This is the make or break moment of if this is to remain a fun event or to become an actual sport.

There are a number of options for fixing this problem. The easiest solution to maintain our current number of players and keep the number of games up per team is to increase the length of the competition.

The elimination of events is also an option.

No solution will be perfect as every option has some form of compromise but this is something that needs to be heavily considered by the committee before next year.
<<

Ibo

Zone Target
Zone Target

Posts: 66

Joined: 14 Jul 2014, 15:35

Site Rep: QLD

Post 23 Feb 2018, 15:06

Re: Nationals is broken!

I'd like to quickly mention that the post nats review and subsequent podcasts are neither committee sanctioned nor official ZLTAC media. They are a private enterprise. Myself and anyone else on those podcasts are simply expressing their opinions.

You dont have to like it (or me for that matter). It has nothing to do with how well run nationals is.
Image
<<

Phoenix

User avatar

Zone Poster
Zone Poster

Section Moderator
Section Moderator

Site Operator
Site Operator

Posts: 286

Joined: 01 Jul 2014, 01:07

Location: Canberra

Site Rep: ACT

Post 23 Feb 2018, 15:38

Re: Nationals is broken!

.... lol ...Just an FYI for the readers .....after a few phone calls and a few more from myself to others ... the person posting is not me, although I can see why some may think so.

8-)
Edit:
Sorry I hit the enter button before I finished writing.

After reading this all through, there are some good points in there and even more from some of the responses that others have written.
Whilst I do agree with others, you really should stand up, be counted and stand by your comments, I have seen where that can lead, however it's still an option that can assist in getting things done, should you choose to do so.

Attacking your reason for not wanting to be open on who you are does seem to give you an excuse to stay that way, I can only hope you find better reasons to maybe be more helpful and be in the open, it is a sad indictment of today's connected and instant world that you feel the need to be anonymous.

If at any stage you would like to discuss the ideas in depth maybe get some solutions out on paper, I am happy to chat anonymously or otherwise, maybe we can get you into a better place to help ?
I'm sure you can find me or email etc.


Having said all that:

Perhaps a bullet point position like Lance put up, minus the emotional aspects, actually I thought it may have been him writing to begin with, lol, would be a good start, not so much an attack, or at least what looks like an attack, to get people on board to assist in the process. (This I know as I write like this on occasion myself....sheesh!)
Even a list of more suggestions / solutions ?

The committee has come along in leaps and bounds from our early years, yes they have more to do, it is not easy nor will it happen overnight.
Those that have spent many hours doing the background work are the silent army that holds it all together, I know even you appreciate that and applaud the introduction of the volunteers and media crews.
These two ideas were not only fantastic but essential for the growth, perhaps a growth a little too quick, that has caught people on the hop.

Now we are all dealing with the increase, as players and officials.
I to was part of the initial Association start up, doomed by apathy in my own opinion and sheer lack of time.
Possibly a better idea would be to have an outsider organise and construct everything for us all to get into ?


Doc
... and so it begins ...
... perhaps after we enjoy a good drink!
<<

Disgruntled Memeber

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Posts: 7

Joined: 19 Feb 2018, 23:01

Site Rep: No Location Represented

Post 23 Feb 2018, 21:33

Re: Nationals is broken!

Well it’s good to see that there is discussion going around. It’s also good to see there are people (at least those commenting) that seem to be on different levels of agreement.

NiteMareRose
Thankyou for the understanding post. There’s not enough time before nationals to do anything but like I said in my last post I plan on potentially drafting something up. Unfortunately time is too limited this close to nationals with all the prep work going on for the committee to look into and implement anything that I might be able to draft up. That and with the potential change in members it’s easiest to wait for the new committee to roll in.

Happy Member
Lol, saw that

Lolance
I am intrigued by your condensed version that just highlights the issues however you did remove the examples used to highlight some of the big issues (time between meeting minutes release and media team assets management) but cheers on the correction though. There wasn’t really anything that was speculative other than the part on womens about it being fun (I think I know who said it but am not 100% certain so did not want to point the finger) and the inner workings of the committee. I am curious as to your opinion on the whole matter though seeing as how Doc thought it might be you to begin with.

Ibo
My apologies, I was under the impression the post-nats review was committee sanctioned as I vaguely recalled it having a ZLTAC logo or something similar in the corner and could not locate it again on twitch to check. If I am recalling this incorrectly then I retract my comments directed directly at the review. I didn't have a problem with the over\underrated stream (or others) as I don't recall them carrying any seal or logo. If it did contain a ZLTAC logo then that is something the committee should be looking into as it could be seen as something that the committee (or eventual association) is endorsing. I still stand by the statement that any sanctioned media be fair and balanced.

Phoenic\Doc
Sorry for any accusations people may have thrown at you (and to anyone who make have been interrogated). I did not think this would turn into a bit of a wild goose chase. I feel that it shouldn’t matter where ideas or critique comes from as long as it is backed up with suggestions or evidence so the desire to make myself known is pretty small. Perhaps once things are moving along and changes start being made I might make myself known to those I may be able to help with.

Given the amount of people calling for action rather than words I do plan on creating some documentation on suggestions at some point after nationals (as I doubt I’ll get time to work on anything between now the end of nats). Anything I do create will be put up on these forums for everyone to comment on (good, bad or otherwise) as I feel that is the best way for everyone to have their say and contribute.
<<

Disgruntled Memeber

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Posts: 7

Joined: 19 Feb 2018, 23:01

Site Rep: No Location Represented

Post 18 Mar 2018, 21:39

Re: Nationals is broken!

Well that was nats 2018, enjoyable as always. We put on a great event and gave the Finland boys something to remember and take home to the rest of the international community. Given the number of teams we had things ran pretty smoothly. We ran ahead of schedule a lot of the time, hiccups were at a minimum and Simmy didn’t pull her hair out so all in all a smooth event. Well done to the ECs, AECs and all the volunteers, Simmy actually got a chance to relax and seemed happy and less stressed on a few occasions!

Throughout nationals I had the chance to overhear and speak to a number of people about the various issues we currently face in our sport. I’m sure a large portion of that is as a result of what I have done here on this forum. I’m not going to lie, it was fun to hear people speculating on who it was. I even heard rumours that some particular people actually paid someone to try and trace me down, unsuccessfully I might add. That gave me a little chuckle as I’m pretty sure I slipped up in a couple of places, I know some stuff about hiding online but I’m not that good. I do wonder though if it would have been a more productive use of their time to work on some of the issues raised than spend it on trying to trace me down. Surely I’m not more important than the growth of our sport.

Now onto what I am here about. As usual, every year we vote on the new committee, and the people we elect are charged with keeping our event going and taking us forward. While there hasn’t been as much of the taking us forward as I would have liked in the previous years, the committees we have elected have managed to run a successful event every year which is something they should all be proud of. This year we as a community elected Simmybear, Pain, and Falcoss and I would like to briefly speak about my thoughts on this year’s committee. Now the following is just my personal thoughts based on my (in some cases limited) interactions with these people from a committee\management standpoint and in no way reflects my thoughts on them as people or laser tag players in which I think they are all both great players and people.

Simmy is an organisational powerhouse, she has the ability and experience to probably run this show on her own so I have no doubt in her capabilities. Unfortunately I feel she could be a little too head strong in her direction on management which can lead to some inflexibility. Our sport is on the cusp of a huge change and it’s my feeling that we need to be very flexible in how we move forward. That being said I am in 2 minds about her being on the committee this year, on the plus side we have someone as a carry-over from the previous year and someone who knows how to whip people into action and get a job done. On the down side however we have someone who might be a little too inflexible for how we need to move forward when we really need to be looking very critically at the structure of our management for the protection of both the committee and our sport.

In relation to Pain being elected, I am happy to see some fresh blood on the committee here. Having only attended nationals for 3 years and now being on the committee means we have someone who is not held back by tradition and wanting to keep with the way things have been done in past. His fresh face means we can have someone with a new approach on things. Here’s hoping his experience with running tennis tournaments and as a youth worker carries over well into helping move forward as a sport. Sadly I don’t really have much more to say on Pain other than I hope he lives up to my expectations and wish him luck.

I’m not going to lie, I’m kinda surprised Falcoss got voted in. His Committee nomination sheet on the wall was a little sparse and lacking in substance compared to all the others around it. The lack of personality and content he put into his nomination pitch just gives me the impression of a lack of effort. No doubt he has experience and is a person who knows what he is doing but based on what he put forward it didn’t fill me with confidence. I would have liked to see another fresher face here to outweigh any adherence to tradition that may be brought forward by Simmy but I don’t see him as an inflexible person so I will just have to wait and see.

Now the stream this year had it’s ups and downs. Firstly the visual quality of the stream was impressive, props to the guys behind the scenes there as the parts I saw of the stream when I wasn’t playing always looked very good. The camera setup was a little janky looking though, I’m pretty sure they were doing that with a camera pointed at a screen of the camera feeds. Not sure why that was necessary, I can think of a couple of possible ways around that but I’m sure there was a reason. Commentary had both its good and bad moments. Sometimes we had some excellent play by play commentating on the cameras and scoreboard. Other times we had commentators giving an overview of the game while explaining elements of it and how or why certain things in it are done. This gave people that don’t know much about the sport an idea of what is going on and made them feel more welcome. Both of these were done very well and hats off to the guys that were able to do that. The only problems here were that the constant commentary didn’t explain the game to those less informed but was excellent to those who were and the reverse for the explanations with a general overview. Finding a middle ground between these two would be absolute perfection but that will take time and experience. Other times unfortunately the stream wasn’t so great, we would have a quick game introduction and then a 10 or so minute tangent about some other team that wasn’t even playing or some random unrelated topic. This tended to be more common in games between lower ranked teams or games where there was a clear dominant team that was owning the game and 2 lower ranked teams. Sometimes the start of the next game would get missed completely. This would also happen when guests were on the stream. Sometimes they would be ignored for half a game while the commentators would chat about unrelated stuff ignoring both the guest and the game. I’m ok with the game being ignored for a bit if it is to interact with the guest but to ignore both is very unprofessional. Perhaps keep the unrelated banter to between the games in future or for specials during changeover between events.

Unfortunately I have to bring up an issue that has happened a couple of times throughout recent years and happened again this year which has greatly annoyed or angered a few players and this is the forgetting of some volunteers. I know it’s hard to mention everyone the leant a hand but there have been a couple of major slips recently with a few major volunteers who played big roles during events getting missed. It’s not so much the announcement of your name saying thanks for helping out but the recognition and portrayal of your talent and skill to the community that is what many volunteers want. It’s hard to show off your abilities if they aren’t given a face or name. I know the problem can be as simple as accidentally skipping past a name on a list but it does mean a lot to some of these people so taking a leaf from Santa’s book and checking that list twice can make a hell of a difference to some. I will state that I am not a volunteer that has been left off a list so this is not me being annoyed about being forgotten at a presentation, I am merely voicing the sometimes unheard frustration of those that are forgotten.

Now many of you have requested that I do more than just “throw stones” and should take action on the issues that I presented. Therefore, in the week since getting back from Albury between recovering from nats flu and returning to work I have started on a thorough combing of the rulebook to find all the issues I can in an effort to correct them. I will state that I am generally better at finding problems than I am at fixing them so I doubt I will be able to fix everything that I find. Some of them will need committee discussion to create a solution, those problems will be noted as such, sometimes with a suggestion if I have an idea. What I have managed to do so far though is complete a 1st pass of the rulebook to find issues within each rule itself, I haven’t done much with comparing rules to look for contradictions or re-structuring of the rulebook, that will come later. This resulted in nearly 3 pages of rules that I managed to find an issue with. The only re-structuring I have done for now is remove all the game formats from the rulebook and put them into a separate Format Book which will allow for more modularity with format selection for events rather than re-writing the rulebook if a format changes (notably triples). Some of the numbers or values in the format book may be off as I am not familiar with them all so this can be taken as a starting point and corrected and expanded upon. I had started on a glossary of terms however I stopped after realising that many rules needed to be re-written or re-worded and re-structured so a full glossary will probably come later. I will be continuing to work on this throughout the coming weeks but do have a rather busy time ahead so don’t know how much time I will be able to commit towards this project in the coming weeks\month. I am also considering announcing who I am once I am near completion of everything I plan to work on as I hope by that point the changes necessary will be under way and my reasons for being anonymous will have passed. So I have attached to this post my work thus far, it includes a list of the broken rules I have found, my Format Book, a quickly edited Rulebook with the formats stripped out and some placeholder rules to reference the format book and what I started with the glossary of terms. None of these are complete in any way and are very much a work in progress. I am making them available to show that I am living up to what was essentially a call to "put up or shut up" from some members of the community so here it is and as usual I welcome any feedback.
Attachments
problems in the rulebook.docx
(20.61 KiB) Downloaded 172 times
ZLTAC Rulebook Overhaul.docx
(73.8 KiB) Downloaded 107 times
Glossary of terms.docx
(17.64 KiB) Downloaded 132 times
Format Book.docx
(40.87 KiB) Downloaded 112 times
<<

Not Not Dan

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Posts: 2

Joined: 21 Mar 2018, 22:47

Site Rep: VIC

Post 21 Mar 2018, 22:58

Re: Nationals is broken!

Oh you're still going.

And your name is?

Oh and on a quick look, your glossary of terms, first one.

Active player is someone who has their team lights on......

How does that work in solos? Is everyone on their team? Oh that's why I was eliminated rep 1. Couldn't find anyone to shoot, don't want to lose points shooting my team.
<<

Disgruntled Memeber

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Posts: 7

Joined: 19 Feb 2018, 23:01

Site Rep: No Location Represented

Post 22 Mar 2018, 14:57

Re: Nationals is broken!

Hey there Not Not Dan

I am still here, working away in all my spare time on trying to make nationals better without wanting any recognition for my work.

You seem confused by the glossary of terms. I will admit that it is not complete as it was the first thing I started but I stopped work on it rather quickly owing to other issues I found but the specific point you raise is actually covered. If you look in the format book the solos format states that it can contain up to 30 teams of 1 and all players are set to the same colour. This layout and wording allows for a better coverage of rules and eliminates the need for specific rules to cover each format. This is helpful in regards to the Trippples format in which a team consists of 3 colours and a team is not defined by a colour. I would have thought you of all people would have an eye for specifics. Perhaps you didn't read everything and just jumped on the first "fault" you could find as a means of dis-crediting me? My focus on all of this is attention to detail and the specifics of wording to close loopholes. The definition probably should be changed to pack colour instead of team colour to better accommodate the flexibility of Trippples and other obscure formats but this will be fixed later as the glossary of terms is near the bottom of my priority list.
<<

Not Not Dan

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Posts: 2

Joined: 21 Mar 2018, 22:47

Site Rep: VIC

Post 22 Mar 2018, 16:36

Re: Nationals is broken!

So you're saying it does need to be changed.....

I did get confused by the glossary of terms remember so you need to be more straight to the point with me otherwise I'll get lost in your huge paragraphs.

I hope I'm not offending you critiquing your work.... You know like you are doing to everyone and everything else. It is for the sport after all, to make it the best it can be.

And your name?
Still haven't addressed this yet.
You do realise that people will take you more seriously if you let people know who you are and where you're coming from.....?
<<

Disgruntled Memeber

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Posts: 7

Joined: 19 Feb 2018, 23:01

Site Rep: No Location Represented

Post 23 Mar 2018, 18:58

Re: Nationals is broken!

Yeah, the phrasing on that one does need to be changed. I had written that part (most of) the glossary before I started the format book or the list of problems in the rulebook so the phrasing and terminology will be a bit out as I stopped working on it due to the number of needed changes in the rules which might throw the glossary out. After thinking on that one later that day and today I will probably change it to:
A player who’s pack is lit in the assigned colour and is able to fire a shot.

No offence on the critique, it was a good call as it didn't mesh with the path I was taking on wording and terminology. I guess I got a bit jabby as I did state when I posted it that I stopped work on the glossary not long after starting it but I should have been clearer it might be inaccurate. My gripe I guess was with the comment of everyone being on your team as that would also apply to the Banks and Robbers format which puts 2 teams on the same colour came off as a bit smart-arsey but I should have remembered that's kinda your shtick :P

I don't see why I need to make myself known. If an idea/suggestion is valid and stands to reason then why should it matter where it comes from or who suggested it. The idea or suggestion should be able to stand on it's own regardless of who is backing it.
<<

Disgruntled Memeber

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Posts: 7

Joined: 19 Feb 2018, 23:01

Site Rep: No Location Represented

Post 02 Jun 2018, 20:18

Re: Nationals is broken!

Unfortunately this is happening a little sooner than I would have liked but I guess things need to be organised sooner rather than later. Attached to this post is all the documentation that I have written so far in regards to fixing the rulebook and running of Nats. In total between these documents, revisions and the note taking I have done for preparing these documents I have written over 30000 words. This is all in the name of furthering laser tag as a recognised sport. I will admit I do not think that what I have written so far is perfect and it undoubtedly will contain a few mistakes and oversights, but it is a damn sight better than what we currently have. I feel however that I have gotten it to a point where it covers enough bases (pun not intended) that it needs to be subjected to public analysis and critique to find what is missing and patch the holes it undoubtedly contains.

About a week after my post-nats post, I started work on the rulebook re-write, to this I devoted at least an entire day a week, in some cases 2, not counting little bits here and there meaning I had little to no spare time for myself or friends and family. I spent time looking into the structure of other rule books and how they work to ensure circumstances are covered for various issues. Not having much experience legalese (genuinely surprised this is actually a recognised word) much of this was difficult to interpret but I persevered. I came to the conclusion that there is no way this would ever work in the long run as a single document and needed to be split. This definitely turned out to be the right call as when it was recently announced that states would require an association for additional registration slots I saw that my structuring of the documentation was perfectly suited to the long term development of the sport. By this I mean that for most major sports there is a top level rule book that is structured to be used in full by the top level of competition but contains provisions for removal or adjusting of rules for lower levels or casual play. I don’t know about how the worlds scene handles their rulebook but it could be modified to have worlds as the top level and we adopt and modify it to suit us it from there.

With the splitting of the rule book, the parts of the old one that did not relate to the playing of the actual game still had to go somewhere as portions of the book related to the running of the competition we call ZLTAC. These parts I turned into the Championship Guidelines which explain and govern the running of the tournament. In all of this, the ZLTAC committee is still the body that oversees the rulebook and can make changes to it as needed as the sport evolves. Doing things this way means that the associations affiliated with ZLTAC can adopt the rule book and make adjustments to suit their needs as it allows without having to adopt the competition rules. This also works as a recognition criteria for associations by the ZLTAC committee

Now I know some of you will state (as some of you have previously in this thread) that we aren’t a proper sport yet so we don’t need a rulebook designed for one. This reasoning perplexes me as the steps we have just taken in team capping and qualification for nationals is exactly the thing done in the top levels of many proper sports. This makes right now the perfect time to start establishing a rule book and documentation that will suit the direction we are taking on the road to becoming the sport we strive to be seen as. I don’t see how we can start to become and grow as a sport when we don’t do any of the groundwork needed to start developing as one.

Now after consideration and slight nudges from a few people, I have decided to announce who I am but there is one condition. I will only make myself known upon the release of meeting minutes by the committee showing a valid and objective discussion of what I have proposed here. This means that the work I have done should not be affected by any bias for or against me or my region. So in addition to posting all my work here for you to see, it has been emailed to the committee as a rulebook change proposal. Regardless of if the comments by the committee are good or bad, I will make myself known as long as they show they have taken the time to read everything objectively. If the feedback is good and the committee wishes to take this further then I will be happy to help where I can. If the feedback is negative then I will bear my name to the criticism so long as it is constructive and valid. The reason I am stating this here is I do not know if the committee will even accept my proposal being that it is anonymous. If this is the case, I will be relying on the community to read it and draw their own conclusions on my work. If you agree with my work then it will be up to you to question the people we have elected as to why they are ignoring what you believe to be a good idea.

The last two weeks have been pretty brutal, spending every hour I had spare working on this project in order to have as much done as I possibly can by the submission deadline. I would like to thank those that have helped me with this and shown me encouragement and support to feel that this is something worth the countless hours I have invested in it.

NOTE: The attached documentation is over 17500 words, it is not a light read
Attachments
ZLTAC Guidelines.docx
(52.36 KiB) Downloaded 74 times
Laws of Australasian Zone Laser Tag.docx
(61.23 KiB) Downloaded 81 times
Format Book.docx
(45.01 KiB) Downloaded 77 times
<<

Tr1cky

User avatar

Zone Bunny
Zone Bunny

Committee Member
Committee Member

Section Moderator
Section Moderator

Site Operator
Site Operator

Posts: 15

Joined: 14 Aug 2014, 11:05

Location: Darwin, Northern Territory

Site Rep: NT

Post 02 Jun 2018, 21:43

Re: Nationals is broken!

Hi Disgruntled Member,

Thank you for your feedback, it is always appreciated. (we also received your email so thank you for using the correct channels.)

We will be reviewing all submissions as per our rulebook review schedule and we will notify the community when we are ready to release 2019's changes.
Parts of your feedback may be incorporated into future adaptions of the rule book other parts will not.
We will try to provide you with rationale around why things were or were not included.

Announcing yourself is your decision and will not influence the committee’s decision to review your feedback.

I have also attached our key release dates for 2018-2019 & our rulebook review dates for your convenience.

Cheers,

Robert "Tr1cky" Dorward
<<

Azrael

User avatar

Zone Poster
Zone Poster

Site Admins
Site Admins

P&C Representative
P&C Representative

Posts: 252

Joined: 25 Mar 2014, 17:01

Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Site Rep: SA

Post 02 Jun 2018, 21:54

Re: Nationals is broken!

Disgruntled Memeber wrote:wordswordswords


I really don't know why you're so preoccupied with the concept of anonymity.
I'd be speechless if the committee refused submissions of content due to lack of an author (as long as it met criteria - see: team cap proposal formats).

Though "I'll do x if you do y" rarely seems to work, pressuring people into things.
I aim to misbehave.

"Hey... Isn't P&C in Melbourne?" - Pal, 2012 (On Subtlety)
"And I will pay $50 to get out of Jail again, because this game is a ****" - Vector, 2013 (On Monopoly)
"I do mistrust dinosaurs..." - Rep, 2014 (On Forum Policy)

Return to Zone Australasian Titles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests