Voting for the location of the CIS-2107 tournament.

MerlinTheMagician

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Al Feyn

Wicc is absolutely right!!! I was literally reading a motivational quote on this topic yesterday. I'll find it now. Here it is!

And what does absolutely right Wicc do?
He offends viewers who actually watched 5 out of 7 CIS matches...

Noom

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Why are you arguing with this gentleman? He's the only one here acting like a hero, and he seems to be carrying the entire team on his back.

In reply to MerlinTheMagician

MerlinTheMagician

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Among all the suggestions, I support Scorpa's idea because having been there twice or more means the person traveled to another city and didn't just stay in their own.
Only those who haven't been there at all should receive 0.3 points. Also, for those who haven't been, a condition should be registration on the forum for at least a year. And also some established minimum number of posts (let's say, 10)...

Voting, regardless of whether multiple choices are allowed, should still be conducted according to the presidential principle - to finally approve the winner's application, it is necessary to have 50+% of the total number of points. That is, in most cases - in two rounds.

In reply to MerlinTheMagician

злой_романтик

9 years ago

Auto-translated

MerlinTheMagician

Among all the suggestions, I support Scorpa's idea because having been there 2 or more times means that the person traveled to another city and didn't just stay in their own.
However, those who haven't been there at all should still receive 0.3. Also, for those who haven't traveled, a condition should be registration on the forum for at least a year. And also some established minimum number of posts (let's say, 10)...

But why the preference for 0.3? Why not 0.5?

iDD

9 years ago

Auto-translated

0.5 Merlin might not be able to handle it.

In reply to iDD

злой_романтик

9 years ago

Auto-translated

iDD

0.5 Merlin might not be able to handle it.

Confirmed, he can handle it ;)

asm

9 years ago

Auto-translated

If we go with Scorp's idea, then for the second and subsequent visits, it should be 1.5 points, otherwise the difference between 1 and 2 or more visits is too large. And without any visits, it should be 0.3.
2. Stinger: New people are not prohibited from coming, but we want those who will actually come to choose the city.
We could also introduce a system of contributions. If you are a virtual participant and want to become a real one, then make a deposit, for example, 1,000, and your vote will be worth a maximum of 1.5 points. If the city wins, the money will go towards paying for your accommodation; if it doesn't win, the money will be returned. If a virtual participant doesn't show up, the money goes into the organizers' fund to cover initial expenses, such as renting a conference hall.
The important thing is to gather as many people as possible.

In reply to asm

злой_романтик

9 years ago

Auto-translated

asm

If the idea is from Scorpa, then the second and subsequent visits should award 1.5 points, otherwise the difference between the first and second (and more) visits is too large.

Not entirely correct, in my opinion. You can get one visit just by being in your own city, but a visit to another city is still a visit to another city.

In reply to злой_романтик

MerlinTheMagician

9 years ago

Auto-translated

evil_romantic

Why is there such a preference for 0.3? Why not 0.5?

I remember 2010. When Kyiv declared itself the winner in the vote, even before all potential participants had officially expressed their opinions, and the discussion was still ongoing. At the same time, Nagan accepted this result (for what reasons? Didn't want to conflict? Or didn't want to bother? It doesn't matter...)
If we look at those who voted for Kyiv back then, we will find that several people who voted FOR it did not actually show up.

In reply to asm

Alexxl

9 years ago

Auto-translated

asm

If the idea is to go with Skorpa, then for the second and subsequent visits, it should be 1.5 points, otherwise the difference between the first and second (and more) visits is too large. And for those who don't attend, it should be 0.3.
2. Stinger: New people are not prohibited from coming, but I would like those who will actually come to choose the city.
We could also introduce a contribution system. If you are a virtual participant and want to become a real one, then make a deposit, for example, 1,000, and your vote will be worth a maximum of 1.5 points. If the city wins, the money will go towards paying for your accommodation; if it doesn't win, the money will be returned. If a virtual participant doesn't show up, the money goes to the organizers' fund to cover priority expenses, such as the conference hall.
The main goal is to gather as many people as possible.

There is no need to make any advance payments; advance payments are the responsibility of the organizers. In other words, to hold the event, the organizer must be financially prepared. As for the points system, you can figure it out yourselves. But the opinions of people who actually travel, rather than just sitting at their computers and stirring up the chat, should be more important. Because they are the ones who choose where to spend their money. And we won't scare away newcomers in any case; those who want to join the May Heroes gathering will go to Yekaterinburg, Moscow, and Volgograd

In reply to Alexxl

Wicc

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Alexxl

There is no need to make any advance payments; advance payments are the responsibility of the organizers, i.e., to hold the event, the organizer must be financially prepared.

Well, you are financially prepared, but other organizers may not be.

Although the advance payment is mainly needed here so that people don't just click randomly, but vote thoughtfully, with their own money.

In reply to Wicc

Alexxl

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Wicc

Well, you might be financially prepared, but other organizations might not be.

Although, prepayment is mainly needed here to prevent people from clicking randomly and to encourage them to vote thoughtfully, with their own money.

Do you sense a contradiction in your statement? If the organizer is not financially prepared, then how can they be an organizer at all?
This is just beyond the pale...)))

Albert@s

9 years ago

Auto-translated

You don't necessarily have to be the organizer, but you are obligated to eat the dumplings!

In reply to Alexxl

Wicc

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Alexxl

Do you sense a contradiction in your statement? The organizer is not financially prepared. Then, how can he even BE an organizer?
This is already beyond the pale....)))

No, I don't see it. The organizer is not the sponsor of the event, but its coordinator. Ideally, the balance for the organizer should be zero – how much he collects from the players, that's how much he spends. Of course, the ideal is unattainable, but still.

In particular, regarding the prepayment – if the organizer is willing to make it from his own funds, that's good, but if not, he can quite collect a prepayment from the players. In the second case, there is more hassle, but the requirements for his own capital are lower.

Alexxl

9 years ago

Auto-translated

When a person doesn't invest their own money and even asks for a prepayment, the quality of the organization inevitably suffers. No one is saying that you need to go into huge debt, but any self-respecting organizer is simply obligated to ensure at least some kind of financial minimum, regardless of the event – whether it's a Heroes gathering, a festival, or a hike. For example, we are now organizing a trip from Volgograd to Dombay. There are five organizers, and we booked buses, made reservations for the hotel and meals, and only then started selling tickets within our community. As a result, everything worked out, and only two tickets remain out of 260.