ETC 2012

[Muthare]

a czytales co sam napisales? wyglada ze zorganizowali sobie sami to na co nazeka sie w WFB

[Asassello]

a czytales co sam napisales? wyglada ze zorganizowali sobie sami to na co nazeka sie w WFB

akurat cytat wskazuje że dostali to wszystko co było uzgodnione z Rogatym = "food, water, air-conditioning, booklets, aula toplay in".

pozdro

[Muthare]

Again

To na co nazekaja na TWF FoW zrobili sami, booklet wszyscy chwalili, i ja tez uwazam ze to fajny pomysl ktory powinien byc na nastepnych imprezach.

[Laik]

3- koszty przedstawimy w ciagu najblizszych dni.

tak z ciekawości, gdzie można to zobaczyć?

[swieta_barbara]

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic ... 3&t=107118

Ciekawa dyskusja, ktora obnaza naiwnosc tego Francuza. Dla hejterow idealny moment, zeby mu dojebac :]
Rowniez idealny moment np. dla Busza, jesliby mial ochote bronic PR Rogatego Szczura.

[Karli]

No, ciekawe posty angola

[Laik]

myślę że sensownie napisał severian:

As I can see, centralized collection of money will just make everything more expensive because it will add up more expenses then there were before (taxes, transfers, bureaucracy...)

I believe that system was fine up to this year. I believe that small changes like open budget with a allowed reasonable profit margin can greatly benefit future of this event. Right now we are witness to many different bids and that by itself present a choice for the Captains to vote having past experience in mind.

i Will Goodwin:

What I don't get is why this central fund has been focused on over other options. From the opinions I heard at this years event was not that players had a problem with the event making money but that it made so much but provided so little of what has come to be expected at an ETC. Would it not be simpler and a lot easier to set a list of things a host organisation has to provide as part of the ETC package before profits can be considered?

ie. Lunch for players, free shuttle bus from airport, reasonable priced food/drink, cover the costs of ref's hotels and flights, open books, regular updates about the event etc.

[swieta_barbara]

This whole attempt is completely not thought through, and is basically a populist statement of a problem with a childish solution thrown in. Great to see this forum democracy works just as bad as any other democracy

I understand the issue you are trying to address is: fear of organizers being dishonest and taking "too much" from the money paid by players. Fair enough. But the solution is to have the funds passing through the hands of one more person - in what universe does such a system make sense?

The proposal is based on a blind assumption that the chairman person is a knight of the round table, while organisers may be vile thieves. Why not the other way around? In the real world of systems logic, the more hands the cash pases through, the more chance of it getting stolen or skimmed. Period. Especially if at some point the money is combined into one neat package. Not to mention the absolute lack of legal framework for the whole process. To make this work, it would probably take a big pile of cash to create the necessary legal entities and some solid paperwork to cover all possibilities from an actual lawyer knowledgeable in EU/nonEU money transfers and the laws of possible countries involved.

And that is before you realize - yay, taxes!

I would say that the best solution to the problem is letting the free market sort it out while accepting the fact that most actual solutions are more costly/hurtful than any skimming that may or may not happen in the future.

And what about these solutions? Let's see: problem: people being dishonest with the money. Solutions:

1) Setting up a list of mandatory things at the ETC that must be provided: Does not fully solve the stated problem - i.e. adresses quantity issue, but not quality. Dishonest organizers may simply decide to "cover" the requirements cheaply. Creates additional problems: with varying prices in different countries, varying numbers of attendants and so on, any such shackle may allow some to profit, some to lose financially and prevent someone from doing something cool/innovative "because we have to spend the cash on shuttles".

I will provide an actual example of how this system worked in socialist Poland: factories making lamps were judged by the government by the number of lamps they made. So they made lamps using as little material as possible, meaning the product was fragile, looked bad and broke easily. The Party then decided it would judge factories based on the total weight of lamps they produced in a year. And that too didn't work, as it was now easiest to make really heavy lamps - lamps so heavy that they fell from the ceiling. That's pretty much how any such system works, that's why at some point we decided to get rid of socialism.

2) Open budget. Does not fully solve stated problem - dishonest organizers may provide a dishonest budget, and I guess it would be fairly simple to do with the complete lack of legal framework for the ETC. Creates additional problem: populist/socialist debates about whether organisers can make a profit, how big that profit could be, so on.

3) Funneling money to organizers through a chairman based on some vague process and criteria: Does not solve stated problem - money can be taken by dishonest chairman, also, see #1. Creates a host of problems associated with law, money transfer, accidental situations which DO happen... and a strong temptation to boot.

Of all these solutions honestly I think #2 is the least damaging, as long as you accept it is a facade to placate the masses and is easy to circumvent if someone really wants to. 1 could be equally damaging and ineffective. And 3 is just terrible. Especially since it does seem to bother the organisers (at least those that can image the financial and legal risks they would face).

Overall, I think the problem is soooo overstated it hurts my brain. It is the organizers who take all the risks and do all the work and are judged on this basis. If the players believe they have received less than the 40 EUR they paid for it, they will probably not vote for the same country to organize an event in the future, and there is your verification. It is the only system you really need, since it covers all the possibilities of a tournament being poor (organizers skimming, organizers incompetent, country/area unfriendly or too costly, bad access to venue and so on), in a fairly comprehensive and objective manner.

Zbyszek, czasami watpie, ale potem robisz cos tak zajebistego, co calkowicie przywraca mi wiare w Ciebie. Fantastyczny post.

[Karli]

[Lidder]

Szach mat, lewackie ścierwo.

[Eldritch]