Oh, sorry it wasn't clear. I was referring to the suggestions people have of spending $200 a different way:
Vince gave away hats to every Junior at St. Louis Regionals. Jimmy gives away theme decks to kids who need them to play. What I'm asking is, if P!P decided to implement any number of these "something else" things suddenly, would you (as a representative example) be okay with them still adding $200 travel for the Junior and Senior 1st place?
My guess is no, because no matter what, it boils down to the Juniors and Seniors getting more than the Masters. It can be smoke screened with "it's not increasing attendance" or "playmats and theme decks will attract more kids" and "advertise on TV instead", but in the end it's about the Capuchin monkeys who demonstrate it's not fair that one monkey gets paid with a grape and the other gets paid with a cucumber. Funny video, but unlike that example where it's monkey vs. monkey, I've been arguing that the Master's division is different than the lower divisions. I see claims about unfairness, but I do not see what about the division structure should mandate equal prizing. All the reasons that are citied that it is deserved....the most players, been a customer for X years, show up tournament after tournament....are all built-in to the fact that the Masters division encompasses everyone who isn't a Junior or Senior! (Obvious statement, but think about it. Master's is the catch-all.) Valid reasons have been given about why it is logical that Junior and Senior divisions should get more, but still, it ends up with "not fair".
me said:
I think if we are to go the route that TPCi is headed regardless of fairness, then they should at least make the BEST use of those resources. I, and many others, think the best use of those resources, IF you are to disregard fairness for the sake of the idea that inequality supports longevity in the game, then it should be deeper and more well thought out.
I think more tokens of accomplishment, or easier access are better than a very top-heavy allocation of resources. Hats for top16, a pack for everyone, a free theme deck for brand new players- these seem to all accomplish that goal much better than 300+200/0.
Like I said, there is a great amount of validity in the desire for equal prizes.
However, it might be best to forgo fairness if we earnestly believe that unequal resource allocation will benefit the longevity of the game. If that is the case (which, regardless of how we feel about fairness IS the case and how the game will proceed and has proceeded, it's always been subtle, with more kids in JRs and SRs getting LCQ invites, and slowly, now, more travel allowances and the like), then we should at least ensure if you're going to do something unfairly for the sake of everyone's benefit, you should at least make the most of it- and I don't think 300->500 for 1st place is doing that.
As for your question, it's either loaded or doesn't make sense, at least to me.
Would I be okay with +200 be adding AND all the other stimulus?
The entire point of the other stimulus/spending is BECAUSE the +200 is a poor allocation. It is supposed to be IN PLACE of the 200 because the budget is finite.
If TPCi gave out theme decks to all new players, gave hats to all the players, gave all the players beach balls, gave a pack to every kid who entered, had playmats for everyone, and then decided to do 300->500, would I like that idea?
No. Because I would still think 300 to 1st and 200 to 2nd would be better. You might say, what if they did THAT too and made it 500/200, I would say the same- I can think of better ways to use the money, even if you're just trying to distribute stipends. I think at that point you're just going to keep adding unreasonable criteria to try to pin me into a position that is hard to defend and relies on the idea that "oh, it isn't fair". Eventually it just gets slippery. But I see what you are TRYING to do, and I'm not that easy to trap.
So, no, i think you're wrong to try to reduce my entire argument into merely point 1. My argument is two-fold.
My points are:
1. It isn't fair.
2. If the fairness doesn't matter, or if fairness<longevity, then this decision is STILL bad, because that sole focus on 1st place isn't achieving that goal well at all.
Trying to isolate my argument and reduce it to only one facet of its two premises is not going to work. My argument is so sound BECAUSE it has those two premises (even though the second point has the conclusion mixed in, it's pretty easy to see what is being gotten at). It only ends up with "it's not fair" if you try to misinterpret the argument, or try to force it into that corner.
----------
tl;dr:
This isn't a poor decision because it is unfair. It is a poor decision because even if you disregard fairness, it's still a poor allocation of the funds/budget.