squabble about team staff vs. host staff (ex-Maryland Novice)

[Bloodwych]

Due to the great amount of staffers expected, we will only be allowing one staffer discount per team. We should have ample staffing for this tournament. Thanks!

[Cody]

I find it pretty unfair that one of our drivers is going to be stuck with nothing to do. There's 6 moderators and 6 scorekeepers needed (not counting potential house teams which could bump this by 1-2 each). With potentially 8 team provided staffers (upwards of 2 of whom are good moderators), why can't you just have your house staff come in and dismiss them (not good advice in general!) if they truly aren't needed?

[DumbJaques]

I find it pretty unfair that one of our drivers is going to be stuck with nothing to do. There's 6 moderators and 6 scorekeepers needed (not counting potential house teams which could bump this by 1-2 each). With potentially 8 team provided staffers (upwards of 2 of whom are good moderators), why can't you just have your house staff come in and dismiss them (not good advice in general!) if they truly aren't needed?

I don't really understand exactly what this post is saying, but it's obviously not "unfair" if a team can't manufacture a need for extra moderators. It would certainly be unfair (to the teams attending) if a host sacrificed moderator quality, but Chris clearly thinks that won't be the case here. You could argue that it's "unfair" that someone who's presumably going to have to drive to this tournament either way isn't getting paid $5 to do so, I guess, but it's not our job to entertain whichever non-Matt driver you guys are bringing along. If you still feel there's been some terrible miscarriage of boredom-justice, I guess I can bring that person a coloring book or something.

Personally, I'd be fine just telling everyone that all mod discounts are at our discretion and that whoever is good enough to warrant reading rounds will get one, but dropping it to 1/team seemed fairer. Besides, wouldn't what you're advocating (house staff dismissals the day of the tournament) make Driver #2 just as unfairly bored? The only difference seems to be that in the latter case it would come out of the blue.

[Auroni]

I think what Cody is hinting at is that it's fairly dickish to not use all the team-provided staffers that are already volunteering their time by coming (provided that they're competent, of course). Sure, you can dissuade teams from signing up additional staffers, but it seems silly not to use all the help that's already there. You can have them scorekeeping if you're sure you have enough good readers, or something.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

Sorry, but I think that tournament directors always get to make their own calls on staff always, so it's unfortunate this isn't fun for VCU driver but if they aren't needed, then they just aren't needed.

[Matt Weiner]

I think it's more unfortunate that a program that should know better continues to turn away qualified readers in favor of inflicting incompetence on teams so they can wring another $10 out of the field at the cost of a significant reduction in tournament quality. When this happened at VT four years ago and GWU last year, it was an expected cost of doing business with new or peripherally aware tournament hosts. What is Maryland's excuse for making people sit through Ophir, Chris Manners, and Jeff Amoros time after time while I or Cody sit in a fourth floor classroom twiddling our thumbs? These people are fine gentlemen but they fucking suck as moderators, and surely you have better ways to raise ten bucks (panhandling at the Five Guys on Broad Street, for example) than pulling this idiocy every time you host.

[Cody]

I don't really understand exactly what this post is saying, but it's obviously not "unfair" if a team can't manufacture a need for extra moderators. It would certainly be unfair (to the teams attending) if a host sacrificed moderator quality, but Chris clearly thinks that won't be the case here. You could argue that it's "unfair" that someone who's presumably going to have to drive to this tournament either way isn't getting paid $5 to do so, I guess, but it's not our job to entertain whichever non-Matt driver you guys are bringing along. If you still feel there's been some terrible miscarriage of boredom-justice, I guess I can bring that person a coloring book or something.

Personally, I'd be fine just telling everyone that all mod discounts are at our discretion and that whoever is good enough to warrant reading rounds will get one, but dropping it to 1/team seemed fairer. Besides, wouldn't what you're advocating (house staff dismissals the day of the tournament) make Driver #2 just as unfairly bored? The only difference seems to be that in the latter case it would come out of the blue.

I am saying, given an equivalent team-provided staffer and a house-provided staffer, you should, 100% of the time, take the team-provided staffer. I think, for some reason, you are interpreting what I am saying as "you must let team-provided staff read." However, I am not saying any given team-provided staffer should be reading--the best moderators should always be reading. Given that you should probably be staffing your rooms with scorekeepers, however, unless someone is doing this incorrectly, should use a team-provided staffer.

Of course, you can offer to let team-provided staffers instead "coach" or tag along with their team(s) for the tournament instead of staffing (I think we discussed a little and wouldn't mind taking this option), but you shouldn't be saying "sorry you came all this way (and have nothing to do), but we're going to use our house-provided staff instead (most of whom kind, like, live near campus and can easily go back home and do something productive)."

I do not understand your last two sentences. What does dismissing house-provided staff have to do with leaving team-provided staff nothing to do?

P.S. There is unique situation in which is theoretically possible for one to have no qualified team-provided staff able to read, and more team-provided staff than necessary to scorekeep in each room. In this case, it is probably unavoidable to not take some team-provided staff.

P.P.S. I think the above response also responds to Charlie's post. Also, I doubt Maryland has suddenly come up with 5 readers, or there are other team-provided staffers, better than George for moderating.

[Matt Weiner]

I honestly have no idea what either Cody or Charlie are talking about regarding some chivalric order of precedence for moderators based on geography. It's certainly nothing I've ever heard of at any tournamentg I've been involved with. This is nothing more complicated than: the TD should use the best moderators/staffers that are available to him or her, as part of the host's duty to run the best possible tournament. That's all. Where anyone is from doesn't enter into it.

[Cody]

I have never advocate for using anything less than the best staff for moderating. However, there is really no functional difference between most scorekeepers (most are not very good, but also not very bad), so there is no reason to use house-provided staff over team-provided staff there, since the team-provided staff have come all this way (I mean, obviously if someone is NOT good at scorekeeping, don't use them!)

I don't believe Charlie has express the same opinion I am expressing.

Finally, this is only really problem for Collegiate Novice, so let's keep that in mind..

[Cheynem]

I agree with Matt that as a TD, it is my job to provide the best possible staff and it does not matter where they come from and as a TD I have no responsibility to utilize outside staffers (barring things like me personally inviting you and then changing my mind at the last minute). I have no knowledge of Maryland's staffers; if they are actually bad as Matt suggests and VCU's staffers are better (Matt Weiner is one of the best readers, I know little about George and Cody's reading ability), then they should be used. If they are the same quality, then it really doesn't matter. Surely you could find some use for the extra people though; I can't recall ever being in a scenario where I had to turn away competent people from doing something, whether it's scorekeeping, helping run stats, or just be a general TD assistant (the latter is sort of awkward for a visiting team member, but perfect for one of your own team members).

[Bloodwych]

First of all, I want to apologize for using the nebulous phrase "we should have ample staffing", because some people have understood the "we" to mean "Maryland". This is not what I meant at all. The staffers who are most qualified to staff this tournament, regardless of team affiliation, will staff this tournament.

Secondly,

This is nothing more complicated than: the TD should use the best moderators/staffers that are available to him or her

is absolutely correct. The only thing that matters is that the tournament is as run smoothly and efficiently as possible. Picking staffers based solely on affiliation while paying no heed to actual ability will cause everyone to lose in the end.

[Cody]

First of all, I want to apologize for using the nebulous phrase "we should have ample staffing", because some people have understood the "we" to mean "Maryland". This is not what I meant at all. The staffers who are most qualified to staff this tournament, regardless of team affiliation, will staff this tournament.

Secondly,

This is nothing more complicated than: the TD should use the best moderators/staffers that are available to him or her

is absolutely correct. The only thing that matters is that the tournament is as run smoothly and efficiently as possible. Picking staffers based solely on affiliation while paying no heed to actual ability will cause everyone to lose in the end.

Actually read my post(s), damn it! Why do people keep implying I am telling people to NOT pick the best staff?

[Auks Ran Ova]

Yeah, I think Cody's point is just that, all else equal, it's courteous to use the staffers that have gone out of their way to travel to a tournament rather than those that can easily be sent back home with no time wasted. No one's demanding that team staff necessarily be allowed to read, or that more qualified staff go unused.

[DumbJaques]

I remain unable to parse various posts in this thread, though my understanding of the situation with VCU specifically is that both staffers would have to come anyway due to the usual "older people have to drive because younger people usually don't have cars" situation so familiar to all of us. I might consider some personal discretion if it were the case that someone traveled in specifically just to staff (and that person was literally a 100% equally-competent moderator). But that's usually never the case, and there are always clearer choices to moderate - if I was ever in charge of a tournament where Matt Weiner sat around doing nothing while he wished he could be reading as other people read poorly, it was an oversight on my part rather than a reflection of some absurd preference. There's one important currency in deciding who's staffing your tournament: Who's going to do the best job.

Again, if people would be happier if we simply accepted only the staffers judged most competent (a criterion that would inevitably include George Berry), I'd happily encourage Chris to adopt it.

Actually read my post(s), damn it! Why do people keep implying I am telling people to NOT pick the best staff?

Multiple people have very little idea what your posts are saying, so I wish I knew what to tell you (damn it!). I'm not being facetious when I say that we spent a solid 10 minutes at practice tonight trying to decipher what you were specifically upset about, and came up empty. Damn it.

[Cody]

Well, I have no idea why some people can grok it, yet others can't. It seems Auroni and Rob understood my reasoning just fine, so I'm mystified (truly, no sarcasm here) why no one else seems to have.

[Cheynem]

I think the problem is that your basic point is:

"The best, most experienced staffers should staff tournaments, regardless of what school they are from." This is a truth that at least in this thread nobody is denying.

You phrased it in a way that was a little confusing though, making it seem like the greatest crime was "one of our drivers is going to be stuck with nothing to do," which quite frankly I and at least other people in this thread don't see as a really big deal (I have run tournaments where team drivers/chaperones had nothing to do). This is sidestepping your main point which is "this is a waste of experienced, good staffers." I didn't understand this point until a long IRC discussion with you and your follow up posts, which I agree are generally easier to follow. Bear in mind that Rob only "understood" you after you posted like 3 or so times further explaining yourself and that even Auroni said you were "hinting" at your point (and he was also present during the IRC discussion). Matt Weiner, who more or less seems to agree with you, also did not understand your point. The central point of your argument is that good staffers should be used, which is true. I think the extra stuff about "having nothing to do" was confusing, and to your credit, you drop it after your initial post. The only reason I'm explaining this is because you legitimately asked for the explanation and that's my take.

I will also say I have never EVER, (Chris Jericho impression) EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR sent any staffer home when TD'ing a tournament unless they genuinely didn't want to be there or were sick. You can always use scorekeepers or stats room people or someone to order pizza (believe you me, I've desperately wanted the latter sometimes when TD'ing!). Hell, use multiple scorekeepers in a room. At one point during NASAT, I think we had like 4-5 staffers in one room and nobody complained.