At pinball at the zoo my rule was 10 seconds. All scorekeepers were 100% on board with it so it worked. But I agree that it would require commitment from all scorekeepers to be consistent, luckily we had that.
1 Like
I attended INDISC 2016 and PAPA19. I enjoyed both, but the queue system at INDISC was DRAMATICALLY superior. At PAPA, the qualifying (I was in C) area and main tournament on Sunday were OK, but Classics lines were a nightmare. The system they used at INDISC should be used at all pinball tournaments, IMHO.
I also enjoyed the match play software used for super selfie league. Tried it for the first time last night at Press Play in Boulder, CO. I was impressed. Very nice software.
2 Likes
As both a PAPA scorekeeper and player, I am very happy with the player-managed queues. Completely avoids the scorekeeper having to be âthe bad guyâ if the next player in the queue isnât immediately present. Also avoids the hassle of a player telling the scorekeeper âhey, take me off the list, Iâve decided to play another game insteadâ - as a scorekeeper, I want to do the least number of clicks that donât involve recording scores (especially in banks with evil games like Dracula or Dr. Who where if you donât catch the score immediately, youâre waiting forever for it to scroll around again). And as a player, Iâve never had a problem with asking another person in the physical queue to hold my place if I need to run to the bathroom for a minute. (And if there isnât another person to ask, then the line probably wonât be a problem anyway when you return. 
)
I agree with that. I think there needs to be a different solution for classics besides manipulation of how players wait. I dontâ know if its more games, limited entries or what.
2 Likes
The Matchplay software has a thing where you can take a picture of the score and upload it to the system. You then transcribe the score yourself, and the scorekeeper just âverifiesâ it. Perhaps that could be implemented more broadly.
Iâll say that the prestige and price pool of PAPA will make this approach a bit too sensitive. It is just my personal believe. It will surprise me a bit if this will be the case.
Most games are not a huge issue on this. Let alone with a dedicated score keeper staff.
We have seen elaborate cheating on my local scene. The TD noticed that a score verification photo had an alternative wall decoration behind the game. Believe it or not.
Wow, that is shocking and disappointing. Who did it? Were they black-balled from competition?
Even if the score keepers had to come around and directly verify all scores by seeing it on the machine, perhaps offloading some of the workload onto the player (taking the photo, transcribing the score) would speed things up a little bit.
lol This post is worthless without pics. Tops tourneys were never given decent points because they were deemed to vulnerable to cheating. Now we have selfie leagues worth big points and âalternative wall decorationsâ. I think we should go back to one scorekeeper per game using a stone tablet and chisel. Sure, it will take a little longer, but cheating will be completely eliminated.
Nice writeup Bob. Wish I couldâve been there.
Alternative Wall Decoration is the name of my Cold Play cover band.
âThe Reckoningâ (round 2) will be coming to a theater near you in about 8 months 
1 Like
Please forgive my ignoranceâŚwhatâs a âTopsâ tournament?
Gotta disagree with Mr George here. With player-managed queuing software, there are no real delays. Waiting the 10 seconds or so for the next player to take the machine is no delay at all. If the current player isnât present, I think 2 (maybe 3) recycles at the front of the queue is fine. And (addressing a different comment) no need for delays if a player who is up changes his mind and wants to play a different game. Any player can take themself OUT of a game queue and hop onto another one at any time. Which makes sense tooâwhy wait in a virtual queue until you get to the front, just to bail and join another?
OTOH, the online queuing system lets you wander off and hang, play other entries, or whatever instead of WASTING time sitting for 15-30 minutes in a physical line just to play one game. There is simply no downside to it as I see itâyou can just do other things while in a line instead of just sitting there and waiting to play pinball, which can (and does) take up most of the day if youâre playing Classics. This waiting is more than just stepping out for a bathroom break, And it is NO hassle for scorekeepers. Call the next name, and if the player isnât there, 1 click (which youâd have to do anyway) will bring thr next player onto the game. With 2 (or 3) strikes to be there when youâre due up, thereâs a good balance between not having to sit in line for a good part of the day, and keeping the lines moving. The player-controlled online queuing seems to work without a hitch at several events, including Magfest and TX Pinfest.
1 Like
Software built into most all modern Sternâs that allows operators to run cash and/ or prize tournaments.
This is almost true. If you canât remove yourself if you are up on a machine. This is annoying when machines break. Race to not get stuck. Scorekeepers can fix it, but the player canât. Maybe there is some other process, but this is what happened in TX.
1 Like
Yes, if youâre on a machine youâre not allowed to pull yourself out of the queue online but any scorekeeper can. Thatâs to prevent people from walking away without having their score recorded. If you had the ability to remove yourself at that point would be nothing but trouble.
Bad 1st & 2nd ball, crud, let me look at the time on my phone andâŚoh, whatâs that? Iâm not supposed to be on this machineâŚ
My personal opinions on the physical vs virtual queues should be obvious since I wrote the virtual process. That said, I think a lot comes down to scorekeeper training, something Iâve been horrible at over the years. I generally hand the tablet over, tell them to follow the prompts and thatâs it, basically zero training. With that in mind (and this thread) Iâm thinking a countdown timer of 10-15 seconds would help the scorekeeper to move onto the next player in the queue when thereâs a no-show. Once the timer reaches 0 Iâd display a message telling the scorekeeper to advance to the next player in the list. Would that ease the scorekeeperâs conscious a bit?
5 Likes
Who wonât be there because they will be dicking off in the practice bank thinking they have more time to kill.
2 Likes
And thus the reason an instant removal from digital queues is a horrible idea.
1 Like
You snooze you lose!
The fundamental problem facing all of these ideas is a mismatch of supply and demand. As long as an event has UNlimited qualifying, there will be lines at peak periods and especially at the end. If you donât want long lines, bite the bullet and limit qualifying attempts to a number that correlates with your hours available, number of machines, average game times and player counts, then structure the playing schedule. [E.G. go European-style, but with more than one pass at the game bank.] If that means the cost per entry goes up or the prize pool goes down, thatâs the trade off you must make. Karlâs software, properly managed, at least gives people the option to wait for a portion of the time somewhere other than idly in a line of chairs near the tournament bank. Waiting in those chairs is a terrible waste of the travel time people spend going to tournaments; when you go somewhere for 3 days or 9, you shouldnât be wasting most of it waiting your turn to play.
Of course, you could use the Dutch Pinball Masters format and do away with lines completely. [shameless plug]
4 Likes
Whatâs the Dutch Pinball Masters format?