Where is the option for an ABC Swiss Champs?
2 Likes
On a serious note, is it intended that the Swiss Championships does not act as a qualifier for a potential European championship?
1 Like
well let’s vote on the voting system then?
1 Like
which system we use to vote for the system to use ?
It’s a good question.
Should be voted.
The easier for me is to consider Swiss Champ as a qualifier and threfore kind of already know what format will be played in these hypotetics euro’s.
1 Like
My proposition from above
Please can you past plain text and just past the small table as an image ?
Club interest ? I’ve few exemples right away :
Court that dont accommodate more than 3v3 game (i.e. your court doesn’t have 2 proper entrance).
As a player you may like 4v4 but the club as a whole may differ if for exemple this year the club want to have the swiss champ.
Mixed : as a player you see the future mixed but you have zero or 1 flinta in your club ?
It’s two exemple where player interest don’t match club reality.
That said i think my vote would go for the easiest way around, since even in your “worst” exemples, when results are close, well, they are close so any results are valids and would make either ways approximately half people “happy” and half people “less happy”.
(it’s why club votes were good enough in my opinion).
I have serious issue with the bias contained in this message and other references to the “mixed solultion”.
And what exactly is the status quo? A mixed team winning the last two swiss champs?
Really though, there are ways to promote inclusivity without the ill advised and blunt method of making things mandatory.
One positive solution would be to reserve some qualification spots to euros for mixed teams.
E.g. Swiss gets 4 main spots and 2 wildcard spots to Euros.
2 main spots go to top two ranking teams (regardless of representation)
2 main spots go to highest ranking mixed teams outside of the finalists.
1 wildcard spot goes to next highest ranking team without a main spot.
1 wildcard spot goes to highest ranking mixed team without a wildcard spot.
2 Likes
Bias ?
Should i phrased it like that :
- Status quo (same as before)
- Favorited : more chance to be drafted if team are mixed ? Make not much sens in Switzerland cause we likely won’t have any waiting list for the champ, I think (based on past year experience)
- Mandatory?
- Other proposition ?
Status quo means “same as before”, so yes the same format without any favorised, prioritized or mandatory-zed mixed teams.
I like your proposal about saving some spots to mixed teams. (which kind of falls into the “favoring” mixed teams way of doing it, which i’m more into than the mandatory way)
Even if it’s also super biased, “the positive solution versus the ill and blunt method” haha.
The list so far, is that ok ?
Bex: Joel
Zurich: Miguel
Basel: Lukas
St Gallen: Bassil
Bern: Emmet
Lausanne: Mario
Genf: Quentin (interim for now, vote in progress)
edit: it is.
You’re right, my bias is transparent. I prefer finding various solutions and compromises to address the in/balance between interests of competition and inclusivity - instead of a one size fits all policy 
I know what status quo means, however, my chagrin was that it is often a phrase loaded with negative connotations.
But from your response it seems that this was not intentional. My apologies for being sensitive in this regard - the topic of mandatory changes is as you know quite charged and divisive (so much so you might even describe it as ill advised 
)
Anyway, going forward, I’ll try and be a good rep for BPB + CH and turn down the oppositional tone a touch and carry on the discussion in good faith and not derail the discussion here any further 
1 Like
I’m down for keeping decision making as simple as possible.
I think in most regards we should follow the format / game mechanics that prospective euros and worlds will have.
If these details are unclear i would advise the best solution would be to follow the precedent set in the most recent competitions (2023).
Any other details should (hopefully) not be too controversial and can be decided, imo, by a simple club vote.
Perhaps bigger clubs can have two votes. But that would not be a deal breaker for me.
Cool, honestly i’m really open to this discussion (mandatory/not) because i have no clue what is “the best” solution to be more inclusive/promotional in this matter without risking too much division.
(I may phrase it poorly sometimes).
I like the idea of following the majors tournament trends but do we have any clue about the hypothetical format of the next euro/world champ ?
Because in absence of clear orientation of EHBA/NA/OTHER(?) this would be up to national committee to take some decision in this regard.
I like the soft way of doing it (saving slots for example).
I also like the test way (testing format on 1 or 2 seasons).
My personal, and very practical opinion, is that without clear orientation i’d always try to take the “safe” way. I’m not even talking about other aspect of this question (morality, equity, etc) but just from a selfish and practical point of view i think having a mixed 4 players team starting from now is a good idea.
Fair enough. But I’m not sure that could be described as the ‘safe’ option for established or prospective teams that are not mixed.
Imagine Swiss is mixed.man. And then major tournaments are not. Several issues here. one teams will have been forced to play a way that is not required at higher levels of competition. Two, that team might thereafter decide to change their lineup, which leads to issues of a team being ill prepared and individuals being left out.
The ‘safest’ option would be to choose an open format that allows for the greatest series of eventualities.
Within that scope everyone is free to be ‘the active part of the change you want to see in the world’. Basically allowing everyone to assert their own values through their own team choices - and by encouraging others from your club to participate and do likewise.
Though as I’ve mentioned in previous posts. I think there are additional measures we could add to make targets of inclusivity more proactive
E.g. registration and qualification spots reserved for mixed teams. Or splitting the final day into challenger and slayer brackets so that competition can be more evenly matched and we can have two tiers of Swiss champions at the end of it.
Regarding the game format, I also think this is the best solution as long as there is no new trend in international discussions. But it’s clear, we should decide as a national commitee, and hence vote on it.
The question of mixed teams seems to be more complicated, I can see the positive as well as the negative aspects you guys mention. How should we proceed? List up the PROs and CONs here and discuss them individually in our clubs?
Thanks, so, first thing first :
voting system variant :
-
Per club voice : each club rep gather all the voices of the club, these voices result in a club vote.
ex: 4 players says YES , 6 players says NO : club vote is NO -
Individual voice : each club rep gather all the voices of the club, these voices are then forwarded to a main count from all the club.
ex : 4 players say YES, 6 players says NO : club rep transmit these 4 x YES and 6x NO to the main voting thread (should be a thread here in poloverse) -
Double majority vote : each club rep gather all the individual votes (4x YES and 6x NO in our exemple). These voices are then reported on the main voting thread, In addition to the individual voices the club vote is also reported on this thread.
EDIT: i think double majority is way too complicated for our case (swiss bp).
I don’t even know were to start because depending on how do you ask the question may influence the vote.
Like for example : “Should the format stick to 3v3 or go to 4v4 ?”
3v3 got 10 individual votes
4v4 got individual 7 votes
3v3 got 3 club votes
4v4 got 4 club votes
Individual wants 3v3
Clubs wants 4v4
Which format is chosen, we stick to 3v3 ?
It’s a mess, in my brain.
I think we should vote either on solution 1 or solution 2.
3 Likes
everyone fine, let’s vote on this? (and hope club and individual count gives the same result?)
My text proposal to share to the club rep. I’ll do an email too.
ENGLISH
The committee is going to hold votes on several items in the coming weeks. The first vote is about the method of collecting these votes. As a reminder, the principle is that the representative of each club submits the question to the members of the club and then reports the votes here. For your information, here is the list of representatives:
- Bex: Joel
- Zurich: Miguel
- Basel: Lukas
- St Gallen: Bassil
- Bern: Emmet
- Lausanne: Mario
- Genf: Quentin
First item for voting:
How should the votes be counted? Note: for this vote, I propose that all results be taken into account individually.
1. Individual Vote Counting
For exemple the representative from Bex collects the votes (for example, 4 YES and 5 NO) Each representative/club submits their result:
- Bex: YES 4 / NO 5
- Zurich: YES 2 / NO 7
- Basel: YES 1 / NO 2
- St Gallen: YES 1 / NO 2
- Bern: YES 2 / NO 3
- Lausanne: YES 5/ NO 2
- Genf: YES 1 / NO 6
Total YES: 16 Total NO: 27
Note:
- In case of a tie, it could be possible to decide with the vote of the clubs.
2. Club Voting
For exemple the representative from Bex collects the votes (for example, 4 YES and 5 NO) The club’s vote on the question is NO. Each representative/club submits their result:
- Bex: NO
- Zurich: YES
- Basel: NO
- St Gallen: NO
- Bern: YES
- Lausanne: NO
- Genf: YES
NO: 4 YES: 3
Note:
- In case of a tie, it could be possible to count the individual votes.
- This is the currently in place system.
FRENCHAIS
Le comité va être amené à faire voter quelques objets ces prochaines semaines.
Le premier vote concerne la manière de récolter ces votes.
Pour rappel le principe est que les représentant de chaque club soumette la question aux membres du club et fasse remonter les votes ici.
Pour info voici la liste des représentants :
Bex: Joel
Zurich: Miguel
Basel: Lukas
St Gallen: Bassil
Bern: Emmet
Lausanne: Mario
Genf: Quentin
Premier objet de vote :
Comment les voix doivent être comptabilisées ?
Note : pour ce vote je propose que tous les résultats soient pris en compte individuellement.
1. Vote par voix individuelles
Le représentant de Bex récolte les votes (par exemple 4 OUI et 5 NON)
Chaque représentant / club transmettent leur résultat :
Bex: OUI 4 / NON 5
Zurich: OUI 2 / NON 7
Basel: OUI 1 / NON 2
St Gallen: OUI 1 / NON 2
Bern: OUI 2 / NON 3
Lausanne: OUI 5/ NON 2
Genf: OUI 1 / NON 6
Total OUI: 16
Total NON : 27
Note :
- En cas d’égalité il serait possible de trancher avec le vote des clubs.
2: Vote par club.
Le représentant de Bex récolte les votes (par exemple 4 OUI et 5 NON)
Le vote du club à la question est NON.
Chaque représentant / club transmettent leur résultat :
Bex: NON
Zurich: OUI
Basel: NON
St Gallen: NON
Bern: OUI
Lausanne: NON
Genf: OUI
NON : 4
OUI : 3
Note :
- En cas d’égalité il serait possible de compter les voix individuelles
- C’est le système actuellement en place.
2 Likes