apterous.org

Matthew Tassier Until the official leaderboard is working properly, I've created a quick replacement that should automatically update (though not necessarily instantly)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NvE1uMQTyp5b8r8e3XN-It0aM3xYOITpleLHtYLlIdA/edit?usp=sharing

Philip Aston Excellent. I see it only has names of those who have completed at least one game.

Matthew Tassier Yep, players should automatically be added as soon as they have a completed game.

Charlie Harrison I think these comments messed up the importhtml

Philip Aston Ah drat. :/

Matthew Tassier Haha, that's unfortunate

Matthew Tassier OK, hopefully should be back now.

Mike Lee The official results spreadsheet, posting it here so we don't have to keep referring back to an Aptomail that may quickly drop down the mailbox:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HFsbgQKKi96AK9c6IFOc1B108qaiQr1LUsxoVPwbEBY/edit?gid=607579153#gid=607579153

David Holmes Would you consider allowingplayers finishing in positions 33-64 dropping down into a plate competition?

Mark O'Regan I actually came here to post the same request as David. With the increase in the number of competitors it gives some of us lower rated players something to aim for and extra motivation to get games played . More work for Andy so appreciate if you want to keep to top 32 to get it finished!

Brian Huang Yes please too

Dave Kempshall David - you could even have 65-96 enter the 'Saucer' competition in a true demonstration that everything (aside from 97-104) counts.

Jon Stammers It would kind of be more desirable in a way to finish 33rd rather than 32nd (or 65th rather than 64th if the saucer thing happens).... Probably just overthinking... I may well be pulling out anyway as I'll be taking a pause from my subscription soon.

Florence C-L It may well technically be "more desirable" to finish 33rd, but I imagine there are far too many variables at play for anybody to have any proper control over such things. I personally would rather finish in the top 32 than come 33rd, even if it means getting a harder competition at the end of it.

Stu Harkness Aye all in! Give me the big boys/girls in the knockouts every day

Jon Stammers Not really an issue for you though Florence since you're holding a decent lead and pretty much assured a top 4 finish.
Actually I'll just post the spreadsheet link here again since it disappeared into the thread and I can't find it anywhere else: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HFsbgQKKi96AK9c6IFOc1B108qaiQr1LUsxoVPwbEBY/edit?gid=607579153#gid=607579153

Stu Patrick I like the idea of the 'saucer' competition. Give us also rans a shot at brief immortality.

Philip Aston I’m with Florence on this one, but each to their own.

Richard Decker Saucer competition sounds wonderful!

Ian Volante Jon, given that I'm usually fighting in the last hours to get into the 32, the thought crossed my mind that it wouldn't be so bad to have a fall-back at least.

Dan Southwell There's enough players for 3 knockout brackets so if the incentive encourages people to get their games played and Andy has the time to run three then why not go the whole hog???

Adam Latchford I think the 65-96 would be where you get a lot of players who haven't made the effort to play their games and there'll be a tonne of knockout games end up being ruled on effort played. It's a shame for the active players who would end up in that shield but I reckon it'll be overkill and an organizational nightmare

Philip Aston Yes, I think 3 tournaments to oversee at once would be much too burdensome.

Tracey Mills I just play as when I can but breaks in between playing

Stephen E Not all players in the 65-96 will be players who haven't made the effort. I hardly win any of my games but I still play them

Dan Southwell Shout out to Mark Baker for top sportsmanship! I mistyped the crucial conundrum and even though he could;ve taken it out he sportingly let time run out and gave me the win. Gold star, chapaeu! Thanks Mark

Stu Harkness Tbf you could just remove the usual inactive suspects at the end! If you've not played a certain number yer oot.

Stu Harkness Bump

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HFsbgQKKi96AK9c6IFOc1B108qaiQr1LUsxoVPwbEBY/edit?gid=607579153#gid=607579153

Sarah M Might be a silly question, but what's the point in entering a tourney if you are not going to play the games? Or try to play as many as you can.

Philip Aston We don’t and can’t expect absolutely everyone to play all of, or lots of, games. As ideal as that would be, sometimes users enter and then something else takes over, i.e. full-time jobs and investment in other hobbies. Some users are only on for 10 minutes at a time and just can’t pin everyone down.

Yes, I agree you should only enter tournaments if you’re 100% certain you know you’re going to play the games in time.

I think this caused problems with the once prestigious Apterous Masters, which has been dormant since 2024. So many entrants really struggled to play their matches on time and they just gave up.

Thomas Carey Sam and Conor's babies are old enough now I reckon we can get that going again