[Deptheads] Strategicon - Private Games

Tue May 14 09:45:35 PDT 2013

1.) I'm pretty sure that Martin Padilla is a registered MIB with SJG. He's
a "freelance representative," so to speak.
B.) I don't think that someone who is running a single copy of the game,
not allowing any more than that, AND playing in the game, should be given
credit for badge hours. Honestly, I don't think that GMs should get credit
for their games if they're acting as a Player at all - that generates an
enormous conflict of interest.

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Shane Sauby <ssshanucon at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I changed all the events to public.
>
> Martin Padilla scheduled a bunch of SJG games on the schedule, but I do
> not know if he is officially associated with SJG.  (Given that he was only
> running SJG games, he was limiting the number of players to one game, he
> was excluding himself from those games, and that he was trying to schedule
> games for the entire weekend gave me that impression)
>
> Tanya expressed my problem.  A GM should not turn someone away from a
> public event so they can play.  But my problem are those events that the GM
> has made it clear that they are going to play and limit the number of
> players in their event so they can.  I do not see a difference between this
> and Open Gaming, other than the GM has used us to advertise their game
> instead of trolling open gaming.
>
>
> Shane Sauby
> Board Games Supervisor
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* Tanya Aldrich <tparry at strategicon.net>
> *To:* deptheads at strategicon.net
> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2013 4:18 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Deptheads] Strategicon - Private Games
>
> I think part of Shane's issue hasn't been covered. Please correct me if
> I'm wrong.
>
> An event with a one game limit should not qualify for GM hours, especially
> if they allocate a space for themselves.
>
> Breaking down the main issue as I see it.
>
> * Private events don't display anywhere accessed by the public, and
> therefore also not pre-reg-able.
> * Public events may give a GM the argument for time credit.
>
> * We currently have no option in between.
>
> Some events have to have limits due to limited access to the game (i.e.
> only x copies in existence). I don't think these people should be
> penalized, but do these people care about a free badge.
>
> Outside GMs enter events because they want the space allocated (private or
> public) and they want their event seen as available at x time (public
> only). (No offense John, but I hate trolling for bodies in open
> gaming.) Also, some outside GMs want to play in the game.
>
> Which brings me to the other part that Shane mentioned that hits closer to
> home. When I have/had the time, I GM certain games to make sure they were
> on the schedule, the events where listed as unlimited, and I did run
> multiple games/rounds as necessary, but my one requirement of running an
> event was being able to play it (at least the first round). Do I need/want
> time credit, no, but if I was someone else, running multiple games/rounds
> of an game and lost time credit that I needed because I had to turn one
> person away in order to be in the event, I'd be a little miffed.
> Particularly, if I entered a number of events that wouldn't otherwise have
> been offered and they didn't run do to lack of interest (this is a case of
> balancing offering unique variety, vs paying someone for actual work).
> People shouldn't be given time for events they personally submitted that
> didn't run, but the they also shouldn't be penalized for wanting to play in
> the one game that does run, if they are willing to run as many games in
> that event as are available at the time of the event. Just something to
> think about when making the rules. [Someday, I'd love to do the
> Catan-a-thon again :) ]
>
> I may have fanned the fire more, but we need to figure things out, so we
> don't have a repeat at Gateway. I'm likely the one that will be coding the
> solution when we figure it out. :)
>
> Shane, for Gamex, the only solution that I can come up with is to warn
> anybody submitting public events with a player limit means no time credit,
> unless you provide an exemption. If you deem it necessary, the same goes
> for turning a person away so that you, the GM, can play. I don't, however,
> agree that events should be denied. And now that I think we all understand
> the hole in the current setup, many of the "private" events may need to be
> made public for this con, with the above caveat.
>
> Tanya
>
> On May 13, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Evil5757 at aol.com wrote:
>
>  Actually there is nothing wrong with the scenario that you describe
> below. If someone wants to play Talisman but only wants to play a 4 player
> game so it doesn't take as long, he can run it as an event and take a
> table. Also, someone might want to run a game with "home rules" that they
> only have one set of (deck of cards, figures, whatever). This would
> logistically make having the game with more people impossible, but should
> be able to be done as an event.
>
> The SJGames is the same situation. They only want a certain number of
> people in the game to increase the enjoyability factor for those that do
> get in the game or whatever metric they employ to determine how many people
> should be in the game.
>
> As far as Open Gaming goes, I would love to see a true Open Gaming room
> come back to our con, and when it does, there is nothing wrong with people
> putting in their events and requesting them to be put in Open Gaming (but
> we'll cross that bridge when we get a real open gaming room).
>
> To the remaining dilemma, as long as someone isn't coming to the con with
> all the slots in their game already spoken for by their friends (as has
> happened), then it is a public event and should be made available to
> everyone in the schedule. If someone already has all the slots filled, they
> are welcome to run the game in Open Gaming.
>
> John
>
>
>  In a message dated 5/13/2013 12:45:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> ssshanucon at yahoo.com writes:
>
> Okay, so what do I do with this situation:
>
>   John wants to play Mansions of Madness.  He has one copy of the game.
> He wants to play.  He does not want to accept more players than the one
> game. He wants to put it on the schedule so other people know that he has
> the game and wants to play, since he has no friends who want to play the
> game with him. John goes to the website and puts in all the information,
> but limits his event to 4 people, since MoM plays 5 and he already is
> claiming one of the spots.
>
>   Given your answer to my previous question, I think my only reasonable
> response is to deny his event and make John find players on his own in open
> gaming.  Let me be perfectly clear on this: I am totally okay with that.  I
> have been trying to accommodate these types of GMs by finding a compromise
> of some kind, but I am perfectly willing to just say "No."  I just want to
> make sure that is really my only option.  And before anybody says anything,
> I do not believe approving a "public" event for only one game is
> acceptable, since then the GM can argue that they are earning volunteer
> hours towards a badge when all they are really doing is bringing their
> favorite game and playing it.
>
> Shane Sauby
> Board Games Supervisor
>
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Eric M. Aldrich I <ealdrich at mac.com>
> *To:* deptheads at strategicon.net
> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2013 11:52 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Deptheads] Strategicon - Private Games
>
>  That's correct. Private games are there to schedule non-public events.
> They allow us to plan the room schedule without the public seeing the games
> listed. They are not listed in the con book. Do not ever list a public
> event as private.
>
> Example of a private event: An internal board meeting during the con.
>
> Eric
>
>  On May 12, 2013, at 10:01 PM, Shane Sauby wrote:
>
>  Hi folks,
>
>     I cannot see the private games on the schedule.  They need to show up
> on the game search page so players know they are being scheduled.
>
> Shane Sauby
> Board Games Supervisor
>
> _______________________________________________
> Deptheads mailing list
> Deptheads at strategicon.net
> http://mordred.punk.net/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Deptheads mailing list
> Deptheads at strategicon.net
> http://mordred.punk.net/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Deptheads mailing list
> Deptheads at strategicon.net
> http://mordred.punk.net/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
>
> _______________________________________________
> Deptheads mailing list
> Deptheads at strategicon.net
> http://mordred.punk.net/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Deptheads mailing list
> Deptheads at strategicon.net
> http://mordred.punk.net/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Deptheads mailing list
> Deptheads at strategicon.net
> http://mordred.punk.net/mailman/listinfo/deptheads
>
>

-- 
"Would you like another drink, sir?" asked the bartender.
"I think not," replied Descartes, and promptly vanished.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mordred.punk.net/pipermail/deptheads/attachments/20130514/b9faf38a/attachment-0001.htm