Standardizing ACF Tournament Rules

[Eric Strange]

I think there should be some sort of official documentation on what the official rules are on division pairing, and multiple other topics. I believe the rules should be geared towards handling large amounts of players, 100 give or take. A large tournament is really the only reason you would need to use ratings or anything else.

I think that the way tournaments are handled currently are fine. Most tournaments do not have enough players to worry about what everyone's rating is, what their tournament performance at other tournaments indicate, or anything else complicated. The checkers community is small enough that we know who belongs in masters division and who doesn't. From there it should be at the tournament officials discretion and responsibility to make sure people are not sandbagging or playing up(just because they want to), and everyone is playing at their proper levels, regardless of ratings or anything else.

I heard some very good ideas in these posts, keep them coming

[JohnAcker]

And it'll stay that small as long as we ignore the ratings. Except for all the people who drop out of the ACF or boycott tournaments because the officials don't want fair play to interfere with their friendships.

[Chexhero]

Using the ratings may not make a difference in grouping most players, but I think the bigger point is that it does give the ACF some more professionalism and set rules in grouping players and it makes them more meaningful and can attract more players. Well, this whole post has been about division pairings and how we would set that up, best methods to use. There is a whole lot more that contribute to players not coming to tournaments that should be discussed. Time per games? Players per division? And what things should tournament organizers be allowed choose and what not.