Now if I can make another comment earlier in the thread you really defending the PTO on what she did. I think many of us agree that she had the right to do what she did. I think the issue is was it the right decesion. While unforgenute a round 1 loss would have been a suitable penilty.
I really think the PTO needs to make some sort of statement and either defend what she did with good reasons or just come out say, you know it was crazy day I had 20 different things I had to manage, and I made a decesion based on limited information, and I'm sorry.
I have not yet had the opportunity to speak directly with the PTO in this matter either, however, I do know that this PTO had been giving warnings to players dating back to Battle Roads, that tardiness may lead to not being able to play.
This is also part of the crux of Bliz's issue with this, that others in the past had been allowed to enter with a first round loss, and suddenly, he feels as if she's come down hard on him.
S/P/T and above are Tier 2 events, and Tier 2 events are enforced at a different level than Tier one. Certainly, we like to give our PTOs some flexibility, just as we do our judges, in making some of these decisions.
Cases like this generally make us take another look at the particular policy, to see if it is really doing what is intended. In some cases, we've disallowed PTOs the ability to have 'options'. One example is the ability to manually pair a match. Even though there are many reasons to allow it, and not allowing it can cause hassles, the removal of this feature allows a PTO to diffuse a very common complaint, 'why did you pair me against X person?' and removes a great deal of assumptions about assumed impropriety.
If we believe the same is necessary in this case, we will update the policy, one way or another and PTOs will have a specific rule to follow in these cases, but will lose the ability to be flexible, even if flexibility seems appropriate.
Hope that helps.
Thank you,
Prof Dave
