If you are running a tipping tournament, simply copy the following text into the first post of your tournament's thread and add some finishing touches like a title, last year's results, pick the colors, fonts etc. Just make sure you erase the point distributions to leave the one of the category of your event (if you're running a Premier event, you leave points for Premier etc.). I will update this post with every rule change that is agreed upon.
- - - - -
HOW TO PLAY
Playing Tipping is very easy. I will post the schedule and then you just tip who you think will win. Just type "in" to play (this will make my life easier but if you forgot to post "in" this is not the end of the world).
e.g If the schedule was...
Ivanovic vs Li
V. Williams vs Pironkova
This is how you would tip...
Ivanovic
Pironkova
It is only main draw singles matches.
If there's 1 point played in a match then the match counts (walkover or a pre-match retirement doesn´t count).
Pick for each match should be posted before the start of that match.
For the final match you will also need to guess how many games will be played. This will work as a tiebreaker.
Do NOT edit your post. If you want to change your picks do it in a new post. Edited posts will make all your picks invalid.
Also DO NOT make changes to your picks by quoting your previous post; this will make all of your changes invalid.
HOW TO SOLVE TIES
1. The player who guessed the winner.
2. The player who is closest in games guessed.
3. The player who posted the fastest post in the final. If no one posted in the final, points from previous rounds are examined going backwards, until a clear advantage of one player is confirmed.
SCORING AND ADDITIONAL POINTS
First Round = 1 point per correct tip.
Every additional round = one point more than for the previous, per correct tip.
Extra points: 1 per correct tip, regardless of round; added to the sum of tournament points before bonus points.
Bonus points:
International
1st: 100
2nd: 75
3rd/4th: 50
5th-8th: 30
This might've happened before you joined the game, but I remember a case where we had two players finishing inside bonus points despite neither of them playing the final day. In such ocassions (as rare as they are) you need rule #4.
True. In a sense #3 should sound something like: "If no one posted in the final, results from previous rounds are examined going backwards, until a clear advantage of one player is confirmed." - so that it can stand clearly for #3 and #4 without a risk of confusion.
P. S. These rules are quite old and not worded very skillfully hence the need for occasional improvements.
1. The player who is closest in games guessed.
2. The player who guessed the winner.
3. The player who got the most correct picks in the semi final. If the same, move backwards to quarterfinal and so on.
4. The player who posted the fastest post in the final. If no one posted in the final go backwards to the semis and so on.
So originally #3 and #4 were swapped. But I still don't like the fastest post idea, and I don't really have good ideas to solve it (maybe have it written not 19 games, but 06 60 61 instead).
So originally #3 and #4 were swapped. But I still don't like the fastest post idea, and I don't really have good ideas to solve it (maybe have it written not 19 games, but 06 60 61 instead).
Yes, originally they were swapped, just like the first two and I think we made the right choices there.
But the question here is, are you OK with current #3 and #4 being substituted with one (instead of two) simple rule which would state that if no one of the two tied players posted in the final, we just count their points backwards until we reach a round where one of them was more successful. That's all we are discussing here.
Okay. But as I understand, in the previous edition rule #4 was used when counting the points backwards gave the same result. If 2 players scored identical points in the previous rounds, you had to look who posted first for the final.
By your suggestion there could be a tied 1st place (if you want to only count backwards, not taking into consideration if someone posted sooner).
If there can be tied positions, it's all good:yeah:
Here I'll simplify to the extreme; suggestion is to go from:
1. The player who guessed the winner.
2. The player who is closest in games guessed. 3. The player who posted the fastest post in the final. If no one posted in the final go backwards to the semis and so on.
4. The player who got the most correct picks in the semi final. If the same, move backwards to quarterfinal and so on.
...to this:
1. The player who guessed the winner.
2. The player who is closest in games guessed. 3. The player who posted the fastest post in the final. If no one posted in the final, points from previous rounds are examined going backwards, until a clear advantage of one player is confirmed.
Deleting a post is the easiest way of cheating in Tipping. Just make 2 posts with 2 different winners and delete the wrong one after the match is finished...
That means that we also need a moderator to monitor the thread.
Deleting a post is the easiest way of cheating in Tipping. Just make 2 posts with 2 different winners and delete the wrong one after the match is finished...
That means that we also need a moderator to monitor the thread.
Honestly I've never deleted a post in this forum myself, not just in tipping but not in any thread, so I don't know if this cheating would actually work, but I'll take your word for it.
However, a player is suspicious only if (s)he posts two different posts, which happens very rarely. A simple solution to this would be if the moderator would just save pages of the forum (File -> Save as...) before the matches start and eventually afterwards if someone sends a late pick. Later on you just check if there are no missing posts in the actual forum pages and that's it.
After that he quoted his own post and later deleted the original post. I'm pretty sure that 95% of the people wouldn't notice a difference if the picks in the quote said (a,e,c,d) instead of (a,b,c,d).
I know that he didn't cheat because I also read the quote before he deleted his original post.
So what you're saying is...
...if I send post #1,
then quote it in post #2
and then delete post #1,
that post #1 will also disappear as quote from post #2
?!
Wow! I never thought you could do that. But having someone monitor the thread 24/7 is not even humanly possible, so I really believe that saving forum pages as websites on your hard drive would be the easiest method of control.
Wow! I never thought you could do that. But having someone monitor the thread 24/7 is not even humanly possible, so I really believe that saving forum pages as websites on your hard drive would be the easiest method of control.
Let me show you what I mean. This is my original post:
Victoria Azarenka
Kim Clijsters
Caroline Wozniacki
Na Li
Francesca Schiavone
Bojana Jovanovski
Jelena Jankovic
Agnieszka Radwanska
Anna Tatishvili
Daniela Hantuchova
Shuai Peng
Anastasiya Yakimova
Pauline Parmentier
Sofia Arvidsson
Monica Niculescu
Julia Goerges
Yanina Wickmayer
Eleni Daniilidou
Petra Cetkovska
Tsvetana Pironkova
Olga Govortsova
Elena Baltacha
Mona Barthel
Simona Halep
Flavia Pennetta
Iveta Benesova
Marina Erakovic
Anabel Medina Garrigues
Petra Martic
Lucie Safarova
Arantxa Rus
Alberta Brianti
Victoria Azarenka
Kim Clijsters
Caroline Wozniacki
Na Li
Francesca Schiavone
Bojana Jovanovski
Jelena Jankovic
Agnieszka Radwanska
Anna Tatishvili
Daniela Hantuchova
Shuai Peng
Anastasiya Yakimova
Pauline Parmentier
Sofia Arvidsson
Monica Niculescu
Julia Goerges
Yanina Wickmayer
Eleni Daniilidou
Petra Cetkovska
Tsvetana Pironkova
Olga Govortsova
Elena Baltacha
Anne Keothavong
Simona Halep
Flavia Pennetta
Iveta Benesova
Marina Erakovic
Anabel Medina Garrigues
Petra Martic
Lucie Safarova
Arantxa Rus Irina Falconi
OK, that makes MUCH more sense! If you had only previously mentioned highlighting and delibaretely omitting highlighting, I would've understood sooner. Oh well...
Yes that might be a problem, but since I'm hearing about it for the first time and I've been playing tipping since 1753 BC (OK, it was 2008 AD) It's probably not so common.
There's no easy solution to this, I guess the moderator has to check and see if the quoted post actually exists whenever (s)he notices that someone posted a quote. I don't know about disqualifying, that may be a bit harsh, but if people think it's not than I'm fine with it (a 10 point deduction penalty would've been enough if you ask me).
Or another idea, that we make it mandatory for players to specify the number of post being quoted; in other words, if I want to quote (i.e. edit) I can only do it by first stating "editing post #273" and after that "change Cibulkova to Penneta" in the next line. That way the moderator could very simply check if post #273 is still there or not.
Another easier solution is to declare that a quoted post is not enough for posting.
We can accept quotations, but all the poster has to post all his picks again, in his new post, not via quoted.
I also think that a deleted post should show something to the moderator.
When it comes to the quoting problem I'd say we make it official that quoting to change your picks is not allowed and that instead a player can only do it by sending a simple message like:
"Please change: X instead of Y." ("thanks" is optional)
People were doing it that way for a long time and now suddenly they're all quoting without any reason (or is there some...).
- - -
And I think we really need to change the tie-breaker rule as suggested in post #13 of this thread.
I'll edit the tie-breaker part today, but I will leave a bit more time for people to get used to the quoting rule and change that after RG. Not that people read rules anyway so it's no biggy (anyone who has ever managed an event can testify that people don't-read-the-written-rules).
I'll do so now, but for the time being I'll just state that posts containing quotes of earlier picks will make all the changes invalid. In the future we might consider some penalties, but I wouldn't rush with that, because we get new players very often in tipping, and in many cases they're not on level terms even with the standard rules, let alone with recently changed ones.
I also erased an extra word from "before the scheduled start of the that match", which is something we agreed upon quite some time ago. Now it's beyond clear by what time should the picks be sent.