Mr Frodo wrote:With so many young players, it it now possible to have a seperate draw? And thanks! We had a great time. Well done to everyone involved.
Not sure what you are after. Can you elaborate
Moderators: lunchmoney, deeferdan, Jimjimjimany, TFF Mods
Mr Frodo wrote:With so many young players, it it now possible to have a seperate draw? And thanks! We had a great time. Well done to everyone involved.
I think he is after the youngsters being drawn together.hawca wrote:Mr Frodo wrote:With so many young players, it it now possible to have a seperate draw? And thanks! We had a great time. Well done to everyone involved.
Not sure what you are after. Can you elaborate
This is not a strong view of mine, merely a suggestion for thought. But why would you be against it? Interested, not angry, put out or anything.sann0638 wrote:I'd be against this.
A few valid pointer to work on here. I wanted the painting to judged by non playing staff as this means it does not turn into a popularity vote. Granted each look at different things.deeferdan2383 wrote:I had a great time. The 2016 champs was my first bb tournament in many years and this event was a culmination of an excellent year of bb and far surpassed last years event.
Rather than smaller tables flatter tables would be cool. However in fairness the spare hard boards did the job when needed.
A bit more direction and transparency on painting and the duel comp would be nice next year. I realise it is an aside. But people put the effort in so the issue shouldn't be sidelined IMO.
Judging for the duel changed from the rules pack, which stated public vote. When I queried this (for clarity) i was given very short shrift by a couple of the judges. I have no problem with the Change of tac, but announcing it would have bee civil.
Commission painted teams, should individuals who have not ainted their teams themselves be allowed to enter?
Minor things really.
See you next year for the lunch rush
Mr Frodo wrote:This is not a strong view of mine, merely a suggestion for thought. But why would you be against it? Interested, not angry, put out or anything.sann0638 wrote:I'd be against this.
And I'm going to drop in the term 'social constructivist learning' here, just so I can sound smart, before you sound way smarter.