Hello.
I am interested in apply the web-programming skills to WER. So I think about the “Future of WER” for our organizers and judges. I have small project for these, but I think that WotC support these things is better.

I wish it will be helpful for our judge work and advancement of organizing skills.

Thanks.

—————————————————————
Future of WER
* In this document, WER means both of V3 reporter and Wizards Event Reporter.

0. Intro
- WER have to be changed.
- Very fast changing of tournament circumstance. - both shop-based event and premier event are much bigger than before.
- No Rivals of WER. - It interrupt the progress of WER.

1. basic principle
1) online & web-based repoter
- No installation, No client, connecting the website which can service the reporter program and save all data in the DB of the server.

2) easy to access tournament information by staffs and players.
- Staffs can use event data for supporting players.
- Players easily access the free information about tournament like pairings, standings and round-time. Also can easily receive the head judge's and tournament official's announcement.

3) paper team will be removed.
- No paper or less paper than before.

2. Specification.
1) Use ASP, PHP, Javascript and web-based programming.
- connection from anywhere, by anydevice, by anybody.
- do not need application for each other devices. Every devices can support HTML standard and Javascript in their own web browsers.

2) Multiple scorekeeper system.
- every floor judges are scorekeepers. each judge has mobile devices (like smartphone, pads, etc.) and connect the reporter web site and input the results which are reported by players. (also judge can make players confirm their own match result through his own device.)
- It can support venue problem and syncronization of each event data on each different WER programs on each different PCs

3) Posting the parings and standings on the webpages in realtime.
- and players check these always and anywhere by themselves.

4) Same support of offline WER tools.
- can supprot seating, pod management, player registration, find players, print service, etc.

3. effects
1) big event (more 200 players participate - WMCQ, PTQ, GP, PT, etc.)
- reduce the loss-time of end-of-rounds and start-of-round.
- amplify the synergy of coverage team.

2) small event or the event which is hold in small venue.
- resolve the crowded situation of small shop.
- can support realtime coverage service for non-participated local players.

4. conclusion
WER have to be changed. But I don't know the developer of WER in Wizards have the ideas about these.

It all sounds so good, but when you look into details, there are huge cracks in this plan:
- not all the judges have mobile devices, or if they do, not all of them have internet access (for big events: I wouldn't like to pay roaming fees just to provide some extra service at GPs) - so we still need to print result entry sheets,
- I'm not sure if letting everyone enter/edit results is a good idea,
- not all the players have mobile devices or internet access - so we still need to post pairings,
- if internet connection breaks down during your event, you're toasted.

To sum up: you can't eliminate paperwork (at least now, maybe in 5, 10, 20 years…?), so the gains would be limited to better support of coverage service, less players at pairing boards and not much else.

Don't get me wrong: I like the idea, but there are issues that need to be addressed, and they might vary by location. For example, I believe that above problems could be eliminated in your country, but I don't see it coming soon in Europe.

I was told - fairly recently! - by a TO that a convention center wanted $50,000 to provide internet for the weekend. To be fair, I've rented rooms for local events that included free internet, and were less than $1000 for a weekend. But that sort of inconsistency in pricing and availability underscores Sebastian's points.

Also, just so everyone is aware: WER is currently in development. I'm not directly involved, so I won't predict a delivery date, nor the feature list - but what I do know is that a LOT of very experienced judges and organizers participated in what I'll call “community design” - i.e., offered and discussed feature requests, requirements specs, etc.