1500 per event will not even cover venue space.
Vince
It will if its at a local store...which I said. The objective is to grow OP, right? What would be the point of having huge events at huge venues? The purpose is to grow smaller markets.
---------- Post added 02/19/2013 at 06:18 PM ----------
Really can we just let this die already? In anycase, not all (and theoretically very few) parents can drive their kids to big events like Nats, just look at a map, that's a long trip. Additionally it costs Juniors and Seniors because they do have to pay for more than one person. Hotels don't always charge by a single straightforward price and will up it for additional people, not to mention people do have to pay for food, which I might add in this economy isn't a pleasant idea to all parents. You may think that such costs are avoidable, but for many parents it isn't, especially when they need to take time off of work.
How many nonparent players can drive? The fact that flying is expensive and driving is too far is probably the number one issue that prevents everyone from going to Nats, not just kids. Taking this into account, how much does $500 cover for two flights? Not much. Lets be honest, $300 for one doesn't cover much. The point was made earlier (in the year when this happened at Regionals) that the point was to grow the game. How does giving 40 kids an extra $200 grow the game? It doesn't. But, that is irrelevant right this second. I'm leaning towards you might not have kids and you yourself are rather young. MOST hotels don't charge extra for kids. Wow, right? And, I already addressed the food issue. You are implying that the parent wasn't going to eat if they don't go to Nats. The truth is, even if the parent doesn't go and the kid doesn't go, the parent will still be paying for both to eat at home, so the food cost is non-existent. I don't think these cost are avoidable, you just keep making up costs that don't exist. Don't forget, adults that play have to take time off of work as well, so again, its not costing the kid "extra," adults players have that same cost.
Sure there are ways to make the cost more convenient if the player's parent in fact plays, but that doesn't nullify it.
I only brought up that point because YOU said it was cheaper per person for adults, when in truth, its the same per person, unless the parent is a player, then that means two players travel on one voucher, which made the kids voucher more effective. I'm not saying its a strong argument on my part, I'm saying your original one was poor and wrong.
Also can we shake this notion of kids have expensive decks, and maintaining them, and that therefore their parents spend a lot of money on them? Many younger players ACTUALLY TRADE for the cards in their deck, not buy them offline. I've been doing that for years and managed to stay competitive with 1-3 prereleases per set, which came out of my allowance, and the occasional booster box for my birthday and Christmas. Additionally not all parents are made of money, or have connections (in fact the former has become increasingly less common), and to insinuate that kids are spoiled and their parents pay for everything from games to decks for them is inaccurate, and uninformed. In fact that's a good reason why Juniors/Seniors require the additional funding, because it's a large incentive to boost the already poor attendance at big events like Nationals.
So, a kids $300 competitive deck is cheaper than mine? It has the same value and they have to spend the same amount of money to get it that I do, ESPECIALLY if they aren't buying singles, which is hands down the cheapest way to obtain cards...that is a well known FACT. Many older players trade too, doesn't make it cheaper. So, you are trying to argue that kids aren't spoiled while telling me that you get $100 box of cards on your birthday and on Christmas, and can afford $90 per set on prereleases? Guess I'm missing your point. Its not inaccurate and its not uniformed, especially when you said "which all came from my allowance." I'm not sure if you are actually aware of where your allowance comes from. You know why its called an allowance and not a job? Because its given to you. Even if you "work," I assure you, you aren't earning the money given to you or it wouldn't be called an allowance. And, for what its worth, I have kids and was a kid, so I'm going to have to assume that my "insinuations" are both more accurate and informed than yours. And, in case you haven't noticed, Juniors and Seniors have poor attendance at every tournament, so I'm not sure what your point is about "big events like nationals."
I said what I did, because the are rather true. Children do have to jump through more hoops, and regardless of any alleviation do have a higher cost placed upon them for cost with certain exceptions withstanding. These two are undeniably true for legal reasons, and regardless of how some people may find ways around costs, the standard prices are still there and still consistent.
Again, you claim truths but give no proofs. The funny thing about the truth is, its easy to prove. I've already given numbers to back my side, you make wrong generalizations and claim truth. Do a run down of the math and prove it to me, don't make generalizations like "undeniably true for legal reasons" or "regardless of some people finding ways around costs." No, really, do the math in your reply. And, when you do, remember, the parent was ALREADY paying for both of them to eat AND it doesn't cost extra for the hotel room. If you want to factor in a plane ticket, remember, that's only institutional to some. In fact, if you insist on using the plane ticket method to show a great difference, remember, there are 40 some odd state tournaments. Lets just assume that, for the sake of arguments, the OVER ALL NET EFFECT is that HALF of the states are close enough to drive. With that in mind, they wouldn't even need the extra money but are getting it anyway...so, for the sake of argument, we'll assume that this "waste" in prizes is a wash as well, and will have a net affect of zero.
Finally while many approaches have been offered, many of them have had little to minimal thought placed into them. As I said earlier in the thread, things are rarely as simple as they appear, or they'd of done it already. I'm not against the offering of ideas, but adamantly declaring stuff, when you have partial information at best, and declaring that the approach given is bad and unfair, when the bias is based on exceptions to the majority, are ideas that I will scrutinize, if for no other reason than those making those declarations are the ones being unfair in their approach.
I'm not sure you read my post. I don't have partial information. In fact, I'm confused how ANYONE can have partial information in this conversation. And, I've never said the approach is bad or unfair, just wrong. What I do find funny is that this argument from you only seems one sided. If people get on here and PRAISE what P!P did, I don't see you saying "How can you praise these decisions? You don't have full information nor have you put the thought into it that they have." Which, is just as true for either side of the argument..
...and, which exceptions are given to the majority? Again, generalizations. This is my problem with YOUR argument. You get on here and defend a position with giving no information as to why you think you are right, then tell everyone else they are wrong, all while proving nothing and using no facts, just generalizations, and to make it all worse, you have the audacity to end all of you nonfactual generalizations with: FACT.
There is two parts of "we" and it needs both: me and you. If YOU really want it to die, just stop, the "we" goes away. I'm willing to bet you are far more interested in arguing with me all day then letting it die...or even making a factual point. And, I have no idea how my declarations are being unfair. I've spoken only truth. Your dislike for it doesn't make it unfair. Asking for EQUAL prize support for the LARGEST customer is actually still a slap in the face of masters.
