Committee Minutes May 2017 Facebooktwittergoogle_plusmail

Date: 28th May
Paul absent for first discussion, all others present.

League Director Election
The LD election is due – we will have 2 weeks for nominations, 2 weeks for discussion, 1 week for voting. A specification of the job will be posted alongside.

Update on website
– It is now possible to include new races in the rankings. There will be a referendum after the League Director election on whether Khorne and Bretonnians should be added.
– A face lift for the site would be helpful to show that there are new features.
– It would be helpful to be able to filter by rulebook. One way to do this would be to have more detailed W/D/L analysis available, rather than rankings in themselves.
– Once the variants filter is in place, the Blood Bowl ranking will not be affected by Dungeonbowl, Sevens, Online etc.

Paul joined the meeting:

Treasurer’s report
– Portugese Eurobowl organising team (2017) have been given a loan
– Welsh Eurobowl organising team (2018) have been given a loan
– Payments have been made for the website developments
– Balance has reduced a lot as a result,
– big increase in renewals as well
– Reiterated that renewals cost 5 of most currencies in face to face to keep the sums easy

Gifts and Trophies update
Torsten delivered trophies to US. Torsten/Manuel to email the NTOs explaining the distribution network. Australia and New Zealand have had theirs sent out. Torsten will keep an inventory of supplies. Committee will reiterate that you get one reroll token per renewal, so that we don’t run out.

World Cup update
The SBBM are becoming an association. The team is under production, as are the pitches, and the rules are under discussion. Registrations will begin October 2018.

Reaction to rules in Death Zone 2
– 80k wizard is problematic, possibly too good. Allowed but not recommended.
– Optional goblins until the end of July, then beginning of August new stars and rosters are mandatory.

Allocation of Majors
– Discussion of which tournaments should be Majors, this will be kept under review, including if there could be a Major in South America.

Date of next meeting
23rd July, same time.

Download PDF

11 thoughts on “Committee Minutes May 2017

  1. Purplegoo

    Hello! Seems I am Mr. Comment this month. Sorry about that!

    I appreciate that I am reacting to one sentence within a summary, and that further details will follow in due course, but a referendum on Khorne and Bretonnians? Where has that come from?!

    If the committee wanted to bring in either / both of these races and keep the community involved, it would have been easy enough to lay out and follow a transparent, logical process; carried out over a couple of years. Formally take the temperature of the community at large, gather data at 1.1, establish what the races add, hold a sanctioned, structured test period, etc. and, yes, finish it off with a vote. As it is, none of that has happened. If the committee believes these rosters should be in, you are our elected officials and I presume it’s because you know something we don’t, so why are you asking us?

    Following on from the other thread I commented on recently, are we really (in the event of a ‘yes’) going to add two new unofficial rosters to the list of things we expect a BB2016 newcomer to know? Newcomers apart, what proportion of the NAF tournament community play on Cyanide or are really across these rosters? What if we vote ‘no’ and then the rosters arrive in a DZ?!

    I play a lot of BB across various environments, just not Cyanide. I’ve never played with or against either Khorne or Brets, or had anyone at a TT event or league night say that the NAF should get on with including them. I’m aware that they are allowed at NAF tournaments now (if not counted in the stats), so if they are popular enough to hold a vote on, where are they? Do we have numbers on how many tournaments have included them (I’ve never seen one in the wild, are they mainly in NA?)?

    This referendum feels very out of the blue, and I hope that before any vote you present arguments and 1.1 tournament data to the membership such that we are better educated. Even then, vote turnout for NAF elections is often very low; I worry a bit that a poll isn’t going to be super representative.

    Anyway. A stream of consciousness more than a comment, and I’m sure the answer is pretty much ‘we’ll get to all of that, don’t worry’. Sadly, I can’t promise not to worry. 😉

    Reply
    1. sann0638 Post author

      We love the comments! This has been on the table for a good many years, before my time on committee, but maybe starting the discussion now would be a good idea, yes.

      Reply
      1. Purplegoo

        So… Where?

        If it’s been on the table a good many years, I guess we can expect some really well rounded, persuasive arguments as to why? The above sort of looks like we’re holding a referendum because we can now alter the database, but there must be something more concrete to it?

        Reply
  2. Purplegoo

    (I suppose I’m specifically interested in some numbers on use, performance, interest, etc. which you must have?)

    Reply
  3. nazgob

    Can we get more information on the loans, please. What were they for? Are these loans potentially available for other teams?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *