Alex Frezza and 2010 National Champion Con Le Banned!!!

[evil psyduck]

This is the most frustrating part of the entire situation. I don't claim to have any understanding of the rationale behind TPCi's decision, and perhaps there is more to the story that we don't know about. As people who have been involved with Pokemon know, TPCi often works in mysterious ways, like Robin Hood, the Chinese Communist Party, or God. As players, we are often forced to accept the consequences of TPCi's unilateral decision making, lack of transparency, and absence of communication.

The fact that there is not a transparent appeals process is very frustrating and demonstrates a certain level of incompetence by the people who work for Pokemon that are responsible for dealing with player issues. Obviously, support.pokemon.com exists, but they are notoriously slow at dealing with these issues. There is no guarantee that an issue will get resolved in time, and often times, we get nothing more than a perfunctory automated response. It took me 59 days to get 2 Player IDs merged. It took regional champion 6 months to hear back about his travel award.

Pokemon has a reputation within the gaming community to have terrible customer service. Heck, Pokemon doesn't even have a phone line that you can call where someone will pick up and talk to you. I don't claim that Pokemon needs to do something about their customer service, I just think that they should.

If you stand behind everything you said here why keep deleting it?

 

[psychup2034]

If you stand behind everything you said here why keep deleting it?

Because the timing of that post was no longer ideal given that Professor Dav already responded to Jay.

Everything I said in that post I stand behind. I firmly believe that TPCi should have contacted Con and Alex and gotten both sides of the story before issuing a punishment. The current policy of banning people has a "guilty until proven innocent" and "the accused does not have an opportunity to face his/her accuser" type of feel do it. I believe that the lack of transparency and cross-communication between the accuser, accused, and TPCi BEFORE the ban is issued is a sign of judicial incompetence.

TPCi is not a democracy. They don't have to follow due process. They don't have to do anything. They can choose to ban everyone over the age of 30. They can choose to ban everyone whose last name ends with the letter "E." They can choose to ban someone without first giving them a chance to defend themselves. However, I believe that neither of the three things I listed in this paragraph are reasonable.

Reposting an argument I made in another message board:

The problem with TPCi's current procedure is, the week before Nationals, a TO/PTO can report that "Jay Hornung cheated at a Battle Roads when he bribed someone to drop a game so he could win the prize." If this someone has compelling evidence (even if the evidence is fabricated), TPCi could ban Jay without letting him know or hearing his side of the story. It may turn out that the story is false, but then this theoretical ban would prevent him from playing in Nationals.

 

[Ice'Cold]

OK, let me see if I got this straight.

Someone, who you won't name,
got a waiver for a reason, that you won't state,
from someone, whom you don't identify,
because of some kind of favoritism, that you won't specify.

And you dare people to defend it.
O.......K.......

I did read about this on Facebook (HeyFonte) and thought it sounded pretty sketchy to me.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

I'm going to have to call you out for your malarkey here. So you're saying in every other country in the world that has Nationals, there is an unfair advantage given to veterans because they can play in Nationals without having any Play! Points? That's just not true. There is no "unfair advantage" that you speak of. The "unfair advantage" part is completely in your head.

The Play! Point requirement in the U.S. is arbitrary. Allowing veterans to play in the game does not give them an "unfair advantage." You need to get that right.



By your flawed logic, people who borrow cards from their friends aren't supporting the game, so if you borrow a lot of cards, you shouldn't be attending Nationals. Those players who have played in the past laid the foundation for the great game we have today. Your claim that those players aren't helping or expand or maintain the game is extremely disrespectful to those players who dealt with so much in the past (WoTC to Nintendo transition, for one). Those players' loyalty to the game is why the game still exists today.

First of all, it is not a reward for players to play at Nationals. It is not a reward for active players to play at nationals. It is not a reward for semi-active players to play at Nationals. The Play! Point requirement for the U.S. is arbitrary and nonessential. Why? Other countries don't have Play! Point requirements for Nationals.

Companies do reward past loyalty. ALL... THE... TIME... I have a Triple Platinum level credit card with some bank that requires $X amount of savings for two years to attain. I no longer have $X in my bank account with that bank, as I moved most of my money into a savings account with another bank. Guess what? I still have my Triple Platinum credit card (and the associated rewards program) because the bank is rewarding me for my past loyalty.

My parents' IKEA rewards card from 1997? Still usable. I still get the 5% discount although we haven't bought a thing from IKEA for 10 years. Why are you comparing TPCi to a company like Walmart instead of to reputable brands who do reward past loyalty. You want TPCi to emulate Walmart? What a joke.

It takes a very myopic view of the world from a relatively vindictive individual to reason that past loyalty to the game should not be rewarded, especially when the cost of allowing an extra 100 players to play in Nationals is marginal.



If you honestly think there is a non-negligible cost to adding 100 players to Nationals, then you really need to learn about marginal costs. Pokemon Nationals is an event that has a high fixed cost buy extremely low variable costs. The cost of adding an additional player on top of the attendance that will already be there is so small that TPCi does not need to take away any support from "active" players to allow a small amount of veterans to play.

If you are against an increase in attendance at Nationals, then I'm sorry that you don't want the game to grow, but some of us do.

I was going to write a long, and admittedly, convoluted, response, but then I realized something, why I'm so annoyed with this complaint to begin with.

When you get down to it the entire point of the requirement was to lessen the workload of the staff so they can better focus on running the even as smoothly as possible. It was meant so the guys doing all the work to make sure you get pairings on time can do just that instead of wasting time with otherwise avoidable busywork. That's it, that's all. The entire idea for this requirement likely culminated as a flat rule to have the event run smoothly. Sure there are some good people the would've played happily but can't as a result, but providing extra loopholes give way to exploitation and inevitable more work, which makes the event even slower than it should.

It all ends up being players getting upset about a decision to resolve another, larger problem. Sure it messes around with players (which BTW they gave you a years heads-up, it shouldn't be a big deal), but it's being done in the hopes overall improvement of the event. You may think it's a step backward, but you may be surprised to find the event functioning better than ever as a result, and if not, then they'll probably try something else to fix the problems.

Players get bitter about getting 'screwed over,' and staff get bitter because they get insulted for trying their best to get the best results for everyone, (Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone)

 

[FSULugia]

Except that most other TCGs and other countries that play Pokemon dont use the point system, yet they know how to run a tournament just fine.

I agree that the point system is incredibly random and is just a way to incentive people to play the game. They shouldnt even have the system if there going to make it such an issue.

And sadly yes TPCi is not a democracy, its its own entity. It can do whatever it wishes and pleases. People dont have to play Pokemon and its their own business. More of a reason why I wouldnt give too hoots about getting banned since the company is just making themselves look bad.

 

[losjackal]

For all of you saying the point limit is arbitrary and not needed....what if TPCi is trying to constrain the attendance at Nationals? Two flights of 512 players is a reasonable size to fit into that event space. Should they let it grow a couple of hundred every year, until we have over 1500 in 2015?

Either they pay for more space, or they limit who can play.

Considering they introduced the 10 point line last year to solve a couple of problems, and increased it to 15 this year, that tells me they are trying to exclude the players who don't compete throughout the year. Just as Regionals have gotten bigger and more of them, consider the National tournament is evolving into something that you have to do some work ahead of time to play in.

 

[Ness]

What if TPCi is trying to constrain the attendance at Nationals? ... Either they pay for more space, or they limit who can play.

I'm not sure what TPCi's exact motivation for the play point requirement is because they're pretty quiet about their reasoning for things. (I wish they weren't.) The company's communication with its player base and especially its ability to utilize feedback have room for improvement. I hear the same type of complaints from vendors of Pokémon product, PTOs that run events, and players that attend these events. One of the only things I miss from the Wizards of the Coast days was the humbleness of the Master Trainers, who went out of their way to talk to you at events and discuss the future of the game.

However, I have seen improvements, and all the TPCi employees I've personally spoken to recently were very friendly and polite to me, and listened to my thoughts, which makes me optimistic. And sometimes TPCi just gets the feedback and hits the nail on the head -- remember the Newman ban? That was the company listening and responding to the community. It was perfect. At the end of the day, though, we are still waiting for TPCi to take the initiative and make a better game for us. (When will we see some better prizes? When will our larger tournaments feature online pairings? When will we have sufficient time limits for 2-of-3? When will we host a cool limited format? When will PTCGO work properly? When will PTCGO feature Tropical Beach?) These are the questions I hope TPCi is reading and the ones that I hope will be answered in the near future.

 

[FirestormXVI]

For all of you saying the point limit is arbitrary and not needed....what if TPCi is trying to constrain the attendance at Nationals? Two flights of 512 players is a reasonable size to fit into that event space. Should they let it grow a couple of hundred every year, until we have over 1500 in 2015?

Either they pay for more space, or they limit who can play.

Considering they introduced the 10 point line last year to solve a couple of problems, and increased it to 15 this year, that tells me they are trying to exclude the players who don't compete throughout the year. Just as Regionals have gotten bigger and more of them, consider the National tournament is evolving into something that you have to do some work ahead of time to play in.

Yes, they should. More players getting involved in the game is a good thing. If I hadn't started getting involved with the Video Game Championships and then the Trading Card Game's competitive circuit, I'd have spent significantly less on Pokemon products than I have in the past 4 years. I would not have dropped hundreds at the Pokemon Center last time I was in Japan. I wouldn't have bought hundreds of dollars worth of cards. I wouldn't be posting media and links on my Facebook wall every few weeks when something new is released on X & Y for my friends to check out. I likely wouldn't even have purchased the last few games. I once dropped out of Pokemon entirely (skipped Gen 3) but now I'm back and Organized Play is what's keeping me here.

Maybe a survey or something needs to be done to assess how much value we bring to Pokemon so that the Organized Play group can get more funding because artificially limiting how many players can play to save costs is terrible for the health of the game.

I was going to write a long, and admittedly, convoluted, response, but then I realized something, why I'm so annoyed with this complaint to begin with.

When you get down to it the entire point of the requirement was to lessen the workload of the staff so they can better focus on running the even as smoothly as possible. It was meant so the guys doing all the work to make sure you get pairings on time can do just that instead of wasting time with otherwise avoidable busywork. That's it, that's all. The entire idea for this requirement likely culminated as a flat rule to have the event run smoothly. Sure there are some good people the would've played happily but can't as a result, but providing extra loopholes give way to exploitation and inevitable more work, which makes the event even slower than it should.

Are you really calling having more players to pair "busywork"?

 

[psychup2034]

When you get down to it the entire point of the requirement was to lessen the workload of the staff so they can better focus on running the even as smoothly as possible. It was meant so the guys doing all the work to make sure you get pairings on time can do just that instead of wasting time with otherwise avoidable busywork. That's it, that's all.

Do you have an official statement from TPCi stating that this is the reason for the Play! Point requirement, or are you making things up in your head again?

Stop trying to make this about the staff. You're trying to make it seem like the people who think the Play! Point requirement should be changed don't appreciate what the staff are doing. That's not true at all. The staff are doing a great job. It's the people that are making the decisions who the complaints are directed toward.

 

[Otaku]

Isn't that kind of like saying I can go to the Super Bowl without a ticket, but only my friends can watch the game?

So you can only enter the facilities for Nationals if you are staff or a competitor?

I really don't see how your comparison works. I'm not one for watching football, but I was also under the impression that some people are really into tailgating, and will go to major events without tickets and just enjoy "being there" in the surrounding areas.

Now, getting off that tangent (...what, I really was a bit confused by the comparison - now Jay has a chance to explain).

There are a lot of people who have contributed much to the Pokémon TCG over the years but... is Nationals supposed to be their "reward"? I thought it was supposed to be the top level tournament in the U.S. If we focus just on seniority, what about those players who might as well be Poké-Parents running a theme deck because they haven't touched the game in years, but decide to show up for Nationals anyway?

I bring this up based on the "merit" arguments being made; Jay has qualified for Worlds 10 times; that's impressive, and I was fortunate enough to know him when he was just another kid playing the TCG when WotC was still running it. His life is getting crowded, and he just isn't going to have time to play like he used to. The thing is... why does that mean when he might not be competitive, that he gets into an event just because? Jay's skills might atrophy, we might get another rules revision, and many more things that could make the time Jay misses due to work result in him playing like a newbie. Is it really logical to argue that just because of Jay's (sometimes distant in game terms) accomplishments, he should be "grandfathered in" to what should be the most competitive tournament of the U.S.A.?

If you want to make sure "good" players who have proven themselves can easily meet the Play! Point requirement, consider a bonus awarded at the beginning of the season based on the previous season's performance. It might also look at placement, or it might just be a fraction of what you earned the last time. If, on the other hand, you can only attend a single event each year... maybe playing in Nationals really isn't for you. If you really think there should be a tournament to reward veteran players, especially those that can't do much in the way of competitive play... maybe that should be the request?

 

[psychup2034]

There are a lot of people who have contributed much to the Pokémon TCG over the years but... is Nationals supposed to be their "reward"? I thought it was supposed to be the top level tournament in the U.S.

If Nationals is really a top level tournament in the U.S., the cutoff should be based on Championship Points, not Play! Points. Play! Points do not measure a level of play, rather the frequency of play. Just because you play a lot, it doesn't make you a "top level" player deserving of attendance in a "top level" event.

 

[vaporeon]

I like it much better to be able to play at Nationals by just having Play Points and not Championship Points. Perhaps TPCi got tired of players only playing in 1 tournament a year and going to Worlds. This forces them to at least play in events through the year so I think its a fair requirement.

 

[ShadowCard]

Vaporeon kind of beat me to it, but does anyone think the play point system may be the protection against someone coming into Nats as his first tournament of the year and placing high enough to get a worlds invite? Didn't we see something similar when premier rating decided worlds invite? I remember there being sour grapes about that.

 

[Jaeger]

Vaporeon kind of beat me to it, but does anyone think the play point system may be the protection against someone coming into Nats as his first tournament of the year and placing high enough to get a worlds invite? Didn't we see something similar when premier rating decided worlds invite? I remember there being sour grapes about that.

So your saying if a player is good enough to make T8 at Nationals out of 1000 players they don't deserve a Worlds Invite?

 

[Otaku]

So your saying if a player is good enough to make T8 at Nationals out of 1000 players they don't deserve a Worlds Invite?

So you're saying they always will be? Things like this tend to not about stopping what normally happens, but what isn't desirable even when it isn't commonplace.

This is Pokémon; while unlikely, luck can indeed allow you to place in the top cut. There is also the idea of a "serious player" versus someone just naturally talented. The upper levels of Organized Play seems to be a reward for those players who can and do dedicate themselves to the game and become skilled at it. Both, not "either/or" and it is a reward, not compensation.

Some people can attend events far easily than others, so rewarding players just on attendance favors such players unduly and who could crowd out many of the more "competitive" players who can just barely get the 15 points cleared. Just rewarding previous wins ends up being too exclusive. If it were possible (and I doubt it is), I'd run it like a mini-Worlds with a LCQ before Nationals. I don't think that would work out any better by the sound of it, and probably a lot worse! :lol:

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

Are you really calling having more players to pair "busywork"?

Admittedly I couldn't think of a better term to use at a time to include dropping players and other work from managing the event. Still though you're right it was a very poor choice of words and I apologize for that.

Do you have an official statement from TPCi stating that this is the reason for the Play! Point requirement, or are you making things up in your head again?

Funny you apparently left out another certain sentence. Bolded for emphasis of course.

The entire idea for this requirement likely culminated as a flat rule to have the event run smoothly.

I take it upon myself to allow certain assumptions exist in my writing, including assuming that people know that when I say things like that I am conveying what I believe is a likely cause. Of course I could be wrong, in fact there's probably a number of additional reasons for their decisions. I at least try to see why they're doing this and be understanding instead of blowing up every time Pokemon make a somewhat strange decision. Sure they aren't the best company in the world, but the division in charge of this stuff is trying their best to help the game.

Stop trying to make this about the staff. You're trying to make it seem like the people who think the Play! Point requirement should be changed don't appreciate what the staff are doing. That's not true at all. The staff are doing a great job. It's the people that are making the decisions who the complaints are directed toward.

You missed the point. I'm not saying the staff are at fault, in any way. What I'm saying is that these decisions were likely (there's that word again) made to alleviate pressure from the staff so they can get their job done. People seem to take the staff for granted a lot, and forget just how hard a job it is, and since Pokemon actually cares about and listens to their staff they try to accommodate them as they can. (Since apparently I need to spell it out, what follows is an assumption) It is quite possible that this loophole you want could cause additional complications, depending on how they verify the players Play!Points it could cause more problems.

 

[psychup2034]

I take it upon myself to allow certain assumptions exist in my writing, including assuming that people know that when I say things like that I am conveying what I believe is a likely cause.

When you get down to it the entire point of the requirement was to lessen the workload of the staff so they can better focus on running the even as smoothly as possible. It was meant so the guys doing all the work to make sure you get pairings on time can do just that instead of wasting time with otherwise avoidable busywork. That's it, that's all.

You did not convey that you believe the "entire point of the requirement was to lessen teh workload of the staff," you stated it as fact. Saying that "the entire idea for this requirement likely culminated as a flat rule to have the event run smoothly" does not qualify your first sentence as speculation.

When you say that "the entire point of the requirement was to lessen the workload of the staff" and then say "the entire idea for this requirement likely culminated as a flat rule to have the event run smoothly," someone who is competent at the English language will interpret this as separate statements of fact and opinion. That's because "lessening the workload of the staff" and "having the event run smoothly" are mutually exclusive.

Of course I could be wrong, in fact there's probably a number of additional reasons for their decisions. I at least try to see why they're doing this and be understanding instead of blowing up every time Pokemon make a somewhat strange decision. Sure they aren't the best company in the world, but the division in charge of this stuff is trying their best to help the game.

Considering the circumstances under which the Play! Point requirement was implemented, it is highly unlikely that the alleviating the work on the staff was the main impetus for adding the requirement. In fact, considering how many people are willing to volunteer at Nationals, augmenting staff would be so easy (and relatively costless). Occam's razor suggests that the actual reason for the Play! Point requirement was to limit the people who signed up for Nationals just to collect the swag before dropping prior to round 1.

I don't doubt that the division at Pokemon that's in charge of this stuff is trying their best to help the game. That's why I believe that they will considering waiving the requirement for people who have over 300 Play! Points (or some other number) to attend Nationals.

You missed the point. I'm not saying the staff are at fault, in any way. What I'm saying is that these decisions were likely (there's that word again) made to alleviate pressure from the staff so they can get their job done.

I think that this decision is unlikely to have been with alleviating pressure from the staff as the main impetus. It's much more likely that this is just an auxiliary benefit.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

You did not convey that you believe the "entire point of the requirement was to lessen teh workload of the staff," you stated it as fact. Saying that "the entire idea for this requirement likely culminated as a flat rule to have the event run smoothly" does not qualify your first sentence as speculation.

When you say that "the entire point of the requirement was to lessen the workload of the staff" and then say "the entire idea for this requirement likely culminated as a flat rule to have the event run smoothly," someone who is competent at the English language will interpret this as separate statements of fact and opinion. That's because "lessening the workload of the staff" and "having the event run smoothly" are mutually exclusive.

It's a little thing called exaggeration, I'd hope you've heard of it. I was exaggerating to get across the idea that, you know, there might be an underlying cause for things.

Considering the circumstances under which the Play! Point requirement was implemented, it is highly unlikely that the alleviating the work on the staff was the main impetus for adding the requirement. In fact, considering how many people are willing to volunteer at Nationals, augmenting staff would be so easy (and relatively costless). Occam's razor suggests that the actual reason for the Play! Point requirement was to limit the people who signed up for Nationals just to collect the swag before dropping prior to round 1.

I don't doubt that the division at Pokemon that's in charge of this stuff is trying their best to help the game. That's why I believe that they will considering waiving the requirement for people who have over 300 Play! Points (or some other number) to attend Nationals.

You are aware that there are jobs that volunteers can't help with don't you. Volunteers often help with the floor, running match slips, fetching things, etc. They don't work the computer, or do rulings, or any of the bigger jobs which would easily be slowed down by having to address loopholes.

I think that this decision is unlikely to have been with alleviating pressure from the staff as the main impetus. It's much more likely that this is just an auxiliary benefit.

Maybe there are other driving factors, however it very easily could play a part. Another possible explanation could be that they don't necessarily want Nats to grow, but the smaller local tournaments.

 

[FSULugia]

Somewhere TPCi is reading this and laughing over the fact that people are trying to think that there was a logical reason for these guys getting banned and over thinking their tournament structure makes any sense.

When you have all that money and power, people can just do things because they can. There doesnt have to be an explanation to everything they do.

TPCi cares more than some other TCG corporations, but at the end of the day, they are still a corporation that is focused on a paycheck and nothing really more. I feel bad for anyone who really spent time thinking that its really any different.

 

[ShadowCard]

So your saying if a player is good enough to make T8 at Nationals out of 1000 players they don't deserve a Worlds Invite?

Am I saying if a player whose only event attended is Nationals is good enough to make T8 at Nationals out of 1000 players they don't deserve a Worlds Invite?

Depends on what type of player we are trying to reward. For the players going to Worlds, do we want competitors who have performed consistently across numerous events, or do we want players whose only credential for being at Worlds is one event?