What FibsLeaGammoners think about migrating one day from FLG to IIBGF

[Tomawaky]

I was asking myself the question yesterday and want to know about your opinion.
I don't want to develop what I think, but hoping that this topic start an open discussion.

[dorbel]

I hope that all Internet players will join and support the IIBGF. This could the birth of a democratic body representing players all over the world. I hope too that Fibsleague will continue to provide its players with a well run competition, as it has in the past. This doesn't necessarily mean exactly as in the past and if Franck has some ideas for the competition to change, I'm all ears.

[garp_02]

The main reason I stay on Fibs is for the League setup. I enjoy the challenge of trying to improve my position (fail mostly).

I'm all for a body to represent worldwide internet players and the league setup looks good, with one notable exception - the timescale involved in completing each round. I think it was PL who brought this up on another thread and I totally agree that 6 months is far too long - I often thought 2 or 3 months on FibsLeague was too long - but that's just my opinion.

You also have to allow for players of all rankings to compete against players at a similar level and, I guess, as the IIBGF grows, there will be more divisions and the cream will float to the top, so to say.

The IIGBF gives an opportunity, at least initially, to play some really good players, but I would hate to see FLG dissappear. It's difficult enough trying to get players to complete their FLG committments without them having committments elsewhere.

Keep it going Franck - it's the best online league setup I've come across - but I'm also very interested to hear your ideas for development.

[Tomawaky]

When I said Migrating from FLG to IIBGF, I meant :
If we can put all that is on FLG to IIBGF and keep running division as they run today (and why not improve it  )
What will you miss ?

...

Nothing I guess.

What is the necessity to run FLG and IIBGF separatly ?
Backgammon players are not so many to put them on different places. I see in IIBGF developpement many similarities with FLG.
I am not speaking about stoping your favorite League  Thanks stop applause
I am speaking about merge it to IIBGF.

I think more about improvment of the league as I did at FLG for the past 10 years than anything else.
But by staying alone at FLG, I am really not sure that I can make many more improvment. Where we are now, I Think we have to go a step further.


Don't you ?

[Krazula]

I've already joined iibgf. I think it is best to give people the choice of playing in both leagues or only in one. I like the league experience and hope both keep running for a long time. I also hope many people choose to join iibgf, the more people in the group means a larger sample size and that their rankings will be more accurate. I don't think its a good idea to require people in flg to join iibgf though, some people may not have enough time for both and it might cause a fewer percentage of matches to be completed.

[stog]

I don't think its a good idea to require people in flg to join iibgf though, some people may not have enough time for both and it might cause a fewer percentage of matches to be completed.

yes agreed - especially as the IIBF matches are 2x13 pointers
whereas FLG are a v good single 7 pointers ('cept Masters division which are 9 pointers)

[Tomawaky]

But if IIBGF agreed to run a league with same format over the same period with masters ranking over the year, keeping the FLG's history ?

[moonshadow]

--keep FLG the same for all of the reasons already given by others.

--its not practical to make the flg a division of the IIBGF. The IIBGF requires all matches played to be recorded and then sent in to the TD. Users may also remain anonymous in FLG, but its impossible with the IIBGF. It does not make sense to combine the two.

--by all means, FLG and IIBGF share resources and ideas, but keep then separate.

[dorbel]

--its not practical to make the flg a division of the IIBGF. The IIBGF requires all matches played to be recorded and then sent in to the TD. Users may also remain anonymous in FLG, but its impossible with the IIBGF. It does not make sense to combine the two.

It may or may not be desirable to make FLG a division of IIBGF, but it isn't impractical. It is trivially easy to record a match file and email it in. I can see that some people might value anonymity, but why they should do so isn't clear to me. What is the point of it? If you enter a live tournament you don't normally do so under a false name and wearing a disguise. Actually one known dice cheat did fly to Spain in 1990 wearing a beard and dark glasses, but was quickly spotted and ejected! One thing that I hope IIBGF will be able to do is to name, shame and ban dice cheats. The derisory 3 month ban handed down by the Danish Federation to one of their best players after he admitted cheating for money on TMG should be life IMO.

I don't think its a good idea to require people in flg to join iibgf though, some people may not have enough time for both and it might cause a fewer percentage of matches to be completed.

Joining the IIBGF doesn't mean that you have to play in IIBGF tournaments.

It's difficult enough trying to get players to complete their FLG committments without them having committments elsewhere.

I don't really know what this means. People who want to join IIBGF and play in their tournaments will do so whether FLG migrates or not. As IIBGF tourneys are conducted at a fairly leisurely pace (about one match a week) I can't see that making any difference anyway.

[garp_02]

On the question of anonimity - I personally have no problem with revealing my name, but others might, for whatever reasons they may have.

That is one advantage, and some might say disadvantage, of internet play. As the IIBGF has been formed for internet backgammon (the clue is in the name), making comparisons to live play is irrelevant. There are already international bodies which govern live tournaments, rankings etc.

If migration can bring advantages, then I'm all for it, but haven't as yet been convinced of the advantages. Bear in mind that it might be easier for Franck, who undoubtably puts a lot of work into running FLG.

Yours open-mindedly,

Garp

[dorbel]

making comparisons to live play is irrelevant. There are already international bodies which govern live tournaments, rankings etc.

Actually no, there aren't any "International bodies that govern live tournaments", nor are there any international rankings. The IIBGF seeks to fill these gaps, at least as far as the Internet is concerned. Who knows, it may even grow into a world governing body for all play, but it can't do that while its members are anonymous.

[moonshadow]

It may or may not be desirable to make FLG a division of IIBGF, but it isn't impractical.

dorbel is correct, poor usage of words on my part and an extremely poor explanation as to why I think it not desirable, so I'll elaborate:

--FLG has been successfully running for 10 years in its present format, which relies more on player good will and self-accountability rather than rules and regulations. There is something to be said for not drastically changing something that has been this successful, especially if it requires adding more requirements.

--It logically follows that if the FLG is integrated into the the IIBGF in some manner, that FLG adopt IIBGF rules and regulations, otherwise there is no point in integrating.

Some of these rules, which would most certainly affect FLG player participation in a drastic manner, are as follows:

1) no anonymity

I can see that some people might value anonymity, but why they should do so isn't clear to me. What is the point of it? If you enter a live tournament you don't normally do so under a false name and wearing a disguise.

In today's world its quite clear why some value online anonymity and the reasons aren't necessarily nefarious. News reports are rife with reasons why people do well to exercise caution in guarding their online privacy, but that's a separate subject.

Simply put, requiring one to register in FLG with their given name will affect participation, especially 'newbies' who may look at FIBS "shouts" and decide they don't want some of those dysfunctional online personas knowing who they are as one of them very well might be a Ted Bundy or Son of Sam looking for the next victim.

As far as anonymity and the IIGBF goes, it currently would be quite easy to thwart the system if one really want to and register as Clint Eastwood, Kate Middleton or Blunder Moon--ok, not that obvious--as none would be the wiser. Currently, no photo id and proof of current address by submission of a utility bill are required for IIBGF registration. (I trust I haven't given Leonardo or Zagloba any ideas here.)  And if that ever became a requirement it would be quite easy to photoshop, which would leave the IIBGF no recourse but to require those that register to submit by mail an original notarized copy of your passport and utility bill.

Backgammon cheats are not going to play in the FLG-- there is no financial incentive and I can't see someone cheating for the prestige of winning as the tourney is rather a quiet in-house affair.

Requiring FLG to register with their given names will reduce participation.

2) recording and sending in all matches played to the TD

It is trivially easy to record a match file and email it in.

Yes, its easy to do, but that is not the point. Its an extra burden I suspect many currently in FLG would not be willing to do and they would just drop out.

3) advising the TD if they wish to withdraw from a tournament and severe penalties of 12 month and 5 year bans from all IIBGF events if the withdrawal is deemed unwarranted, including a player that "silently" withdraws. (see Section 6 of IIBGF rules)

This is currently one of the good points of FLG in that players drop out for one reason or another, either temporarily or permanently, and the pools go on will little fanfare. Some players that have dropped out over the years come back and re-enter with no hassle. Yes, its technically unfair if a player plays only half the participants in pool and then drops out before playing the others, but no one has complained about it and the pools go on year after year.

4)  voluntary match forfeits are not allowed.

I know of some instances in FLG where Player A has forfeited a match with Player B because of issues, either real or imagined, they have with Player B. Also, FLG grants forfeits if an opponent fails to respond to an email  invitation to play. Though this forfeiting is technically not fair, it works for FLG and the players play on.


Many of the current FLG players in the lower Bronze and Silver pools--and I dare say even some from the Gold and Master pools as well--would drop out completely from the FLG rather than comply with all the IIBGF rules, not because they have some sinister purpose or want to cheat, but they like the way it is now and would not want to jump through more hoops in order to play backgammon in a less formal league that has fewer rules or requirements.

The main reason I would give for keeping the FLG the same and not integrating it into the IIBGF is that the FLG in its current less structured and less formal state will continue to draw new players the more formalized and structured IIBGF will not.

Leave the FLG as it is and don't tinker with a successful model.  

Perhaps Tomawaky could regard the FLG as a feeder system for the IIBGF. Keep FLG  like it is but promote the IIBGF to FLG players. (Put links to it on the FLG site, send simple promotional emails to players, etc.)

[Tomawaky]

Very very thanks for all the reply, we expect more ...

That is the goal of that topic : benefits / disadvantages
Why it's a good idea or a bad idea ?

What would be necessary to migrate to IIBGF ? what is incompatible ?

Is it better or not to have IIBGF and FLG ...

All this kind of questions.


But Yes I heard your comment FLG is THE GREATEST BACKGAMMON LEAGUE ON EARTH and you all love his TD who is almost as great  


Let's hear some others comments