Battle Round #3 - Thunderdome Contest

Why 40 ?
This is not ok. It is not fair!
It is way better 2 x 20 than one time 40.
Or in this round should be 2 winners
and 10 votes

@dexdn -

I agree - 2 x 20 is better than one time 40.

But there is a system limitation that I outlined on the below post.

To prevent overrunning the limitation, we had to make a change.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/th...test-dot-com-only.1131094/page-7#post-7187255

The above explains why we had to go to 40 per Battle Round.

-Cougar

I saw that, but still isn't ok. because you had 2 rounds til now and do math again if in first Battle Round was 40 Names who will be the winner? WorthySolution for sure not.

So what's your solution?

If you don't want "bottleneck" that is ok. you can still avoid that by having 2,3... Battle Rounds simultaneously you don't need to wait 48h. to open another thread.

@dexdn -

I understand your suggestion and agree we can run simultaneous Battle Rounds. We have been doing that as I've started one per day with 48 hour voting windows.

But we need to take into consideration that by leaving it at 20 items per Battle Round (even if run simultaneously) this still leaves us with a potential hurdle to overcome at month end - as the Battle Round count will potentially create too many Champions at our current submission volume. It is the jump in submission volume that has prompted me to re-adjust to the max (40) count.

As outlined in the below post, I took that into consideration.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/th...test-dot-com-only.1131094/page-7#post-7187255


With the current submission volume, the Battle Rounds will max out the Finalist Poll limitations (and with 20 per Round) might even overrun the overall 40 choice limitation that exist with NP Polling for the Finalist Match.

I don't disagree with you that 20 is better - but there is a limitation to how many Battle Round Champions we can have to stay under the NP Polling Size Limitation.

Leaving it at 20 items per Battle Round will still leaves us with a potential runway overshoot.

So if we continue to run Battle Rounds simultaneously (and maintaining 20 per Round) - What do we do if we run over 40+ Battle Rounds by month end and have too many Champions from the rounds (> 40)? Then what happens?

Please help me understand your full solution to help us avoid the wall we are up against.

Thanks,

-Cougar

Only fair solution is start over, withdraw first and second BR emerge into one BR and start new one with 40 names and 5 votes.

.

I think it is difficult to find a solution that will please everyone and I think we have learned a few lessons from the current situation. At the moment there will be a winner from BR1 and another winner from BR2 that may go to the next round, to go back and drop one of those winners due to technical reasons may not be a welcomed decision.

I wasn't over the moon with Cougar's choice, but it was a decent solution and I think it works, and does not put anyone at a disadvantage? If there is another battle next month, we can do 40 starting at the first round?

Victor

>> Only fair solution is start over...



Battle Rounds or entire April 2019 Contest? (based on your full response I am assuming Battle Rounds, but want to make sure I am not misinterpreting your suggestion and making a false assumption on my end - thanks)

Another question emerges - since the 1st Battle Round was completed at 6:13am this morning, which was 3 hours prior to my posting about the identified potential Battle Round count overrun issue, how is this fair to them?

I don't disagree this is an issue and I'm glad we identified the issue BEFORE we ran off the runway at month end when emotions would have been 10X higher over the topic.

I just have a hard time understanding why we should penalize the 1st Battle Round participants and force them to have to go through a 2nd round of voting?

Appreciate your insights.

-Cougar


ps: To be clear to anyone watching this dialogue, I don't disagree with @dexdn respectful approach to sharing his view and the dialogue being exchanged. Quite the opposite, I welcome it as when I did the math this morning and identified a potential month end problem, I knew we had a hurdle to overcome to fix the issue.

@dexdn / @tldboss / @qdix -

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the topic.

-Cougar

1BR & 2BR - 20 names each, 5 votes each
3BR - 40 names and 5 votes
How this sounds to you? Fair?

I think names flowing and 40 is good number for voting.

I won't be starting the 4th Battle Round until I resolve the concerns mentioned on this thread.

-Cougar

Time to start brainstorming people. In the meantime, seeing as this is all FREE and only costs the participants a hand reg or two, which we all do anyways, I think we can view this month and previous as a "sandbox" of sorts for the competition. Kinks will be ironed out as time goes on. So we should expect BC to have to implement changes in accordance with participation volume.

Totally get how we all want a level playing field. In the meantime, keep it rolling, keep the ideas coming. This competition is really in its infancy, and BC is doing his best.

Idea: Rather than having battle rounds determined by number of entries submitted, it would be based on time. Time is always consistent. Divide the month up by an equal number of weeks or days. So have a battle round every 5 days (or what ever time frame), no matter the number of entries. All the other rules remain the same. This also future-proofs the competition whether it grows larger or smaller.

There could be a caveat which covers the last week or days, the battle round which would be shorter or longer if the month couldn't be equally divided up.

I couldn't keep up with all the rules. Based on the numbers, I feel others agree. A simple idea is being completely over thought and over burdened.......I wish it all the best.

Idea: Keep everything the way it is, but adjust the number of winners based on the battle round entries. So for a battle round consisting of 20 entries, one winner. 40 entries, 2 winners. etc etc.

After further consideration - I concur with @dexdn

I prefer 20 entries per Battle Round.

While my intent with the increase to 40 was to help avoid a potential problem at month end, it created too much confusion.

I have reset everything to the original 20 entries per Battle Round and will restart the 3rd Battle Round (and create a 4th Battle Round) with 20 names each, 5 votes each to be consistent with Round #1 and Round #2.

This thread and is now closed. A (new) 3rd Battle Round will begin shortly to replace the initial one.

• The April 2019 contest will be capped at 400 Qualified Entries (20 Battle Rounds - each round having 20 entries) providing a Top 20 Finalist pool.
• The Likes voting avenue will be dropped.
• The Panelist avenue will be dropped.

-Cougar.