Mike Truran wrote:Michael
Thank you for that - and for putting me right!
Two (linked) thoughts occur:
1. It may be more useful to ask people who don't play rather than those who do, as the survey results may be in the nature of self-fulfilling prophecy. No doubt Alex's survey was carried out with that point in mind.
2. Surveying the people who do play, even if it may be a second best option (see above), still seems to me to be a better option than surveying Council members. I believe this is what Alex will be doing at this year's BCC (although I the point made by Caesar "alea iacta est").
My thought is that those supporting the event by playing in it provide the most useful pool of respondents since they are the people I would not want to upset. Attracting new players to the event is a different task.
Given that the event extends over many days some thought might be given to convening an Open Forum during the event to discuss future plans.
There might also be some merit in inviting players representatives to sit on the organising committee, if such a committee exists.
Council members don't necessarily want to be party to deciding the details of the event but I am sure that they would appreciate forewarning about changes to the length of the event and an invitation to comment on proposed changes.
Lee Bullock's idea of doubling up the early rounds rather than compressing the later rounds seems worth pursuing. It is in the nature of Swiss Events that results in the later rounds are more critical in determining the prizewinners.
Also, it does seem unfair to the players to not give them sufficient time to prepare for the play-offs.