I am waiting for a bus.
There are two people ahead of me.
The bus arrives.
The first person gets on.
The second person gets on.
I step on and the driver tells me the bus is full.
That is a bad analogy. You and those 2 people haven't been standing in line for a year, have you? You and those 2 people haven't been working all year to finally stand in line, have you?
That analogy, in no way, is analogous of this situation. It's utter fail, seriously.
The person ahead of me was just that: ahead of me. There is no implicatioin about better or worse or more deserving or having worked harder to get to that spot in the queue. The person ahead of me made it on the bus and I didn't. That is all.
Yet, with a rating list, there is implication that the person above you is better than you, as they have a higher rating. It is also implied that the person above you worked harder than you did because of their higher rating. My point is that when two people are within a few points of another, it is impossible to tell who has worked harder than the other person, and that any rewards one person may get should be given to the next person because you can't prove one person worked harder than the other. A few easier opponents, a single loss at battle roads, many things can make a 5 point different in someone's rating.
One person is getting to play in the more prestigious tournament in the world, the other person is getting nothing. How is that fair?
You earn a place at worlds not the right to block someone else playing at worlds.
Again, I am not against people opting out. Nowhere have I said that. I am against the whole idea of passing down invites rewarding a few people and not others that are within a few points of them.
A player who is close but doesn't get a pass down will still be close and not get an invite if there are no pass downs. Either way they miss.
Yet, a person that is close, but doesn't earn an invite normally could possibly still get an invite if there are passdowns. They have no chance of playing if there aren't passdowns. In this scenario, one group gets an invite to play only if there are passdowns, while the other group doesn't get an invite under any conditions. In this scenario, one group are a few points higher than the other group.
Is that fair that a few points, that can't be used to prove that one group has worked much harder than the other group, is the deciding factor on who gets to play?
It is one thing to fight for the underdog but to "tilt at windmills" makes no sense, a lost cause is already lost. Without passdowns you make it worse for all the players just below the cut not better. None of them get a chance under your scheme.
My scheme? You act like I would get rid of all the passed down invites and just toss them in the trash. You make me look like the bad guy, when
I am the one fighting for those who deserve the invite just as much as the person above them that got the very last trickle down invite.
I want fairness, not random trickle down, you must be better than the person below you, hand outs.
Imagine how sour the grapes will be if there are no passdowns.
of course there would be sour grapes after years of having passdowns. But when has sour grapes been an accurate representation of the fairness of a system? there have been sour grapes for worlds invites FOR YEARS. That's not a strong point.
Why even have passdowns? Passdowns tell someone that even though they didn't do well enough to earn an invite through a tournament and even though they didn't do well enough all year to earn an invite through ratings, they still might have a chance
if they get lucky. Notice the bold.
I wouldn't want any player to take part in Nationals knowing that if they do well but cannot go to worlds they will grinch someone elses chance at worlds. I can only see that approach generating resentment and ill feeling.
That is SOTG, something none of us can control. If people choose to use their rating spot to do that, how can you hold the entire system in custody for it?
You can't. Every system can be abused and every system will be abused for wrong reasons.
It is that person's choice if they want to opt out or not. They shouldn't have to feel pressured by you nor me to opt out because someone else won't get to play at worlds because of it.
Did that other person do well enough at a tournament to earn an invite? No. Did that other person do well enough the entire year to earn an invite through ratings? No. Tell me again why that person 'deserves' to play in worlds?
Tell me a reason that can't also be applied to the person right below them in ratings.
Answer: you can't.
