Time for some more discussion folks. Since we no longer have access to the room we had been using we are going to be moving the game around on a rotating basis. The question becomes how to determine who gets seats when there is more demand than supply. Fortunately, we will only have to do this some of the time since Adam has generously offered up his place which has plenty of capacity and Ryan is willing to try two tables by converting his game room to hold a second table. However, we are not always going to have access to high capacity venues. We may be limited to 10, 9, or even 8 seats.
There are many different factors which could be used to decide who gets priority. They include but are not limited to the following:
* "Seniority" as in the people who have been playing mid-week poker the longest. Should people who have been with the group longest get priority?
* Attendance - people who have shown up the most regularly over the past few months. Does it make sense that the players who always show up get spots over those who show up periodically?
* Duration - players who show up and play the longest each night. Should a person who plays from 7pm until the game breaks trump a player who shows up late and/or leaves early?
* Hosts - people who have offered their place to play. Clearly anyone hosting would play while hosting. But do people who host get priority over people who don't host
when playing at a third party location?
* First come first served? - True casino style would be that those who show up first get seats and after the table is full they can either wait or leave. RSVP order to the email invite could conceivably be used but I don't think that would be a good solution.
* Rotation - everyone would take a turn sitting out. Does it make sense for everyone to have to skip a week every so often when the seating is limited?
* Other? I'm sure there are other ways we can determine who gets a seat and who doesn't which are not listed above.
Also, as a sidebar, I want to know what people's opinions are about player versus shuffler. I am working on a way to get the shuffler to take up less rail space, ideally the solution would take zero rail space. But if the choice had to be made between having the shuffler or having people shuffle the cards but squeezing in an extra person, what would people prefer?
Please comment on what you think would be the best method for distributing limited seats. I'd like to get this resolved so that we can have the procedure in place for next week's game. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It being a rare Wednesday when I can make it to Wednesday night poker, I'm thinking my opinion about how this should be resolved takes less precedent over a regular, a semi-regular, or even someone who plays once every 2 months (none of which I am at this juncture).
That being said, I think rather than come up with some convoluted system that you have to Sushi Cowboy has to manage, I think a first-come first-served email RSVP + a first-come first-served night-of-play arrangement is the most democratic way to resolve it.
People can RSVP for a guaranteed spot any time after the previous Wednesday game (starting 9am Thursday mornings, for instance) and when it gets over the next week’s limit, people are warned that they may not have a seat. Then as venue is determined you let the appropriate people who were in the "grey area" know if they have a seat or not. And then anyone is also welcome to show up promptly at 7pm to play in anyone’s seat until that particular person shows up to claim their RSVP’d seat. That person who had been playing since 7pm but did NOT have a guaranteed spot can then play magic, watch from the sidelines, or go home depending on what is possible at that night’s venue.
Beyond that, I think this group is also prone to going along with what you suggest, Martin. Why don't you suggest something you think may work and have us weigh in, rather than leaving it entirely open…
In addition: we're all technically savvy people and know how to create a reminder that pops up every Thursday at 9am, telling ourselves to RSVP for the upcoming week.
I think relying on a system that awaits an email from Martin before we RSVP unfairly weights to those of us that are looking at our email pretty much 100% of the time. That's why I think a standard time every week is the best way to do it.
I also think having a standard list of "assumed" players for each week is not a good way to do it, because of the reasons you list in the post, Martin. Treat us all equally for the most "fair" solution.
first, classify yourself into the group you think you should honestly be in, like I am obviously an alternate.
Tilt the seat assignment toward regulars who can start on time, then irregulars who can start on time. After start time, everyone is an alternate.
or
Monday night, put all interested parties into a hat and draw for the number of seats at that week's venue. This should always be tilted towards people who want to start at the beginning of the game.
or
Kumite, battle to the death, last eight, nine or ten standing get a seat.
note- people who confirm to start on time and are more than a half-hour (hour?) late become end-of-list alternates.
What do you guys think?
Post a Comment