I said I probably wasn’t going to do another one of these until next year, and certainly not so soon, so what’s changed?
Events, dear boy, events.
I think we all need a distraction from the end of the world, and if we’re lucky and things do get back to normal soon, I’m hoping I might be able to travel next year. So I’m bringing forward my plans for the biggest, most inclusive and hopefully best ZooChat Cup yet.
Soon.
This isn’t that version. There’s a couple of things I want to test first, and I can think of no greater nation to serve as lab rats than the British (and the Irish. I am certainly not stepping into *that* debate). So I’m going to run a relatively small, quick tournament featuring 12 British Isles zoos. Note that I will probably lapse into calling this a ‘British’ tournament from here on, but again, I acknowledge Dublin is not in Britain.
The large number of members here who are based in Britain makes it one of the very few countries where a dedicated Cup can work. I realise though that this leaves out a big part of our community that haven’t been to any of the zoos in question, and I apologise for that. I have a plan that will make it easier to participate from nearly every part of the zoo world that I’ll roll out soon.
Until then, remember that you don’t need to have visited a zoo to vote. If you’re not sure you know enough to vote, ask! If you know you like chimps but aren’t sure what to make of Edinburgh’s exhibit, post in the thread asking for information that can help you make up your mind. Sharing knowledge is the point of this game.
So how will it work?
The format will be as follows: two divisions of six zoos each, where each zoo will play each other once. After that, the top three zoos from each conference will progress to a finals round, where they will play only the three qualifiers from the other half of the draw.
They will not play twice against the other qualifiers from their own division. Instead, they will carry the results from their matches against the other qualifiers forward. For instance, take the following scenario of results from a division:
Cotswold 4-1, 60%
Twycross 3-2, 55%
London 3-2, 52%
Jersey 2-3, 48%
Paignton 2-3 45%
Chester 1-4, 40%
I know, I know. The bottom place finish isn’t *quite* realistic. I’ll come to that.
The three qualifying zoos are Cotswold, Twycross and London. Cotswold has topped the group, which is great. Well done Cotswold. But when we look at the results between those three zoos, we see that they didn’t quite dominate against the other qualifiers. The three matches between them were as follows:
Twycross 60 d. London 40
Cotswold 55 d London 45
Twycross 70 d Cotswold 30
While Cotswold topped the group, it’s actually now behind Twycross as it enters the second round, because Twycross performed best against the other qualifiers. The standings that the three zoos take with them are as follows:
Twycross 2-0, 65%
Cotswold 1-1, 44.5%
London 0-2, 42.5%
Once each of these zoos has played against the three qualifiers from the other division (let’s say Paignton, Edinburgh and Bristol. It doesn’t matter), the leading zoo wins the Cup. This is a fair system, because it ensures that in the second and final round, the six zoos each play each other once, but it avoids running additional matches between zoos that have already faced each other.
The other really big and important change concerns how we vote. I am trialling a new idea here that I *hope* will work well enough to roll it out into the bigger tournament I have planned to follow this one. Rather than the existing four options (3-0 or 2-1 for each competing zoo), there will be six, and you will need to select two of them.
You will still need to vote 2-1, or 3-0 for one of the zoos. But you will have two additional options, to give a bonus vote to one zoo or the other. The list of options for a Twycross-Bristol match would look like this:
Bristol 3-0 Twycross
Bristol 2-1 Twycross
Twycross 2-1 Bristol
Twycross 3-0 Bristol
Bonus - Bristol
Bonus - Twycross
For a vote to be valid you *must* choose one and only one of the first four options. Casting a bonus vote is optional, but you must choose either neither, or one option.
What are the bonus votes? They are an incentive to dive into the discussion. Your bonus vote is triggered only when you post explaining why you have voted the way you have. That explanation must be substantial: I reserve the right to change the threshold based on seeing what works, but for now I am setting it at a minimum of 25 words.
Bonus votes can be applied to make a 2-1 vote either a 3-1 split or a 2-2 one (you’re welcome, @TeaLovingDave). They can also turn a 3-0 decision into a 3-1 vote. They *cannot*, however, be used to turn a 3-0 vote into a 4-0 one. That is too powerful and will distort the results too much if people don’t play within the spirit of the rules.
This system will mean a little bit of extra work for me: I will need to post at the conclusion of each match identifying which bonus votes cast are valid, and confirming the overall result.
I’m not 100% sure this will work the way I hope, but bear with me as we work it out together. Finally, there’s one more important difference to previous tournaments. In this one, contestants will be defined as the zoo organisations as a whole: ZSL will be represented by London and Whipsnade together. The same applies to the following entities:
These six entities will be joined by Colchester, Cotswold, Dublin, Jersey, Marwell and Twycross. I haven’t drawn the divisions yet but each will have three combined entities and three standalone zoos.
But wait. What about Chester?
I’m leaving Chester out, for two reasons. One is that it only recently finished up a finals appearance in the World Cup, and so it’s had a good run already. The other is that it is such a recognised standout in the UK that everybody else would likely be playing for second, and that makes for a dull game. Besides, it did really badly in my made-up scenario earlier, so it deserves to be demoted.
We’ll get underway tomorrow.
Events, dear boy, events.
I think we all need a distraction from the end of the world, and if we’re lucky and things do get back to normal soon, I’m hoping I might be able to travel next year. So I’m bringing forward my plans for the biggest, most inclusive and hopefully best ZooChat Cup yet.
Soon.
This isn’t that version. There’s a couple of things I want to test first, and I can think of no greater nation to serve as lab rats than the British (and the Irish. I am certainly not stepping into *that* debate). So I’m going to run a relatively small, quick tournament featuring 12 British Isles zoos. Note that I will probably lapse into calling this a ‘British’ tournament from here on, but again, I acknowledge Dublin is not in Britain.
The large number of members here who are based in Britain makes it one of the very few countries where a dedicated Cup can work. I realise though that this leaves out a big part of our community that haven’t been to any of the zoos in question, and I apologise for that. I have a plan that will make it easier to participate from nearly every part of the zoo world that I’ll roll out soon.
Until then, remember that you don’t need to have visited a zoo to vote. If you’re not sure you know enough to vote, ask! If you know you like chimps but aren’t sure what to make of Edinburgh’s exhibit, post in the thread asking for information that can help you make up your mind. Sharing knowledge is the point of this game.
So how will it work?
The format will be as follows: two divisions of six zoos each, where each zoo will play each other once. After that, the top three zoos from each conference will progress to a finals round, where they will play only the three qualifiers from the other half of the draw.
They will not play twice against the other qualifiers from their own division. Instead, they will carry the results from their matches against the other qualifiers forward. For instance, take the following scenario of results from a division:
Cotswold 4-1, 60%
Twycross 3-2, 55%
London 3-2, 52%
Jersey 2-3, 48%
Paignton 2-3 45%
Chester 1-4, 40%
I know, I know. The bottom place finish isn’t *quite* realistic. I’ll come to that.
The three qualifying zoos are Cotswold, Twycross and London. Cotswold has topped the group, which is great. Well done Cotswold. But when we look at the results between those three zoos, we see that they didn’t quite dominate against the other qualifiers. The three matches between them were as follows:
Twycross 60 d. London 40
Cotswold 55 d London 45
Twycross 70 d Cotswold 30
While Cotswold topped the group, it’s actually now behind Twycross as it enters the second round, because Twycross performed best against the other qualifiers. The standings that the three zoos take with them are as follows:
Twycross 2-0, 65%
Cotswold 1-1, 44.5%
London 0-2, 42.5%
Once each of these zoos has played against the three qualifiers from the other division (let’s say Paignton, Edinburgh and Bristol. It doesn’t matter), the leading zoo wins the Cup. This is a fair system, because it ensures that in the second and final round, the six zoos each play each other once, but it avoids running additional matches between zoos that have already faced each other.
The other really big and important change concerns how we vote. I am trialling a new idea here that I *hope* will work well enough to roll it out into the bigger tournament I have planned to follow this one. Rather than the existing four options (3-0 or 2-1 for each competing zoo), there will be six, and you will need to select two of them.
You will still need to vote 2-1, or 3-0 for one of the zoos. But you will have two additional options, to give a bonus vote to one zoo or the other. The list of options for a Twycross-Bristol match would look like this:
Bristol 3-0 Twycross
Bristol 2-1 Twycross
Twycross 2-1 Bristol
Twycross 3-0 Bristol
Bonus - Bristol
Bonus - Twycross
For a vote to be valid you *must* choose one and only one of the first four options. Casting a bonus vote is optional, but you must choose either neither, or one option.
What are the bonus votes? They are an incentive to dive into the discussion. Your bonus vote is triggered only when you post explaining why you have voted the way you have. That explanation must be substantial: I reserve the right to change the threshold based on seeing what works, but for now I am setting it at a minimum of 25 words.
Bonus votes can be applied to make a 2-1 vote either a 3-1 split or a 2-2 one (you’re welcome, @TeaLovingDave). They can also turn a 3-0 decision into a 3-1 vote. They *cannot*, however, be used to turn a 3-0 vote into a 4-0 one. That is too powerful and will distort the results too much if people don’t play within the spirit of the rules.
This system will mean a little bit of extra work for me: I will need to post at the conclusion of each match identifying which bonus votes cast are valid, and confirming the overall result.
I’m not 100% sure this will work the way I hope, but bear with me as we work it out together. Finally, there’s one more important difference to previous tournaments. In this one, contestants will be defined as the zoo organisations as a whole: ZSL will be represented by London and Whipsnade together. The same applies to the following entities:
- Aspinall Foundation
- Bristol Zoo Society
- Royal Zoo Society of Scotland
- Zoo Society of East Anglia
- Wild Planet Trust (I just learned this is Whitley’s new name. Urgh.)
These six entities will be joined by Colchester, Cotswold, Dublin, Jersey, Marwell and Twycross. I haven’t drawn the divisions yet but each will have three combined entities and three standalone zoos.
But wait. What about Chester?
I’m leaving Chester out, for two reasons. One is that it only recently finished up a finals appearance in the World Cup, and so it’s had a good run already. The other is that it is such a recognised standout in the UK that everybody else would likely be playing for second, and that makes for a dull game. Besides, it did really badly in my made-up scenario earlier, so it deserves to be demoted.
We’ll get underway tomorrow.
