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

[losjackal]

In the military, we have over 500 different official documents stating we are in the military. I think a simple military verification and training report should suffice for TPCi . If you have anymore questions, feel free to PM me.

I don't doubt active military service could be easily verified. If there is exceptions to be made, I wonder if it needs to be down to the level of "which weekends/months were you unavailable", or if it just makes the most sense to grant a blanket exception if currently serving. Still welcome suggestions from you or Setstage or r3skyline since you know the possibilities.

 

[Vegeta ss4]

In all honesty, military as a whole is an unplanned situation for the most part. There are always training cycles and certain drills and or underwater that all branches deal with. We are NOT able to tell you, or the pokemon community our plans when we know them. I think a waiver of PP points is warranted for all ACTIVE duty military. Reservist unless on ACTIVE duty do not get the waiver in my mind. They know there schedule, 1 weekend a months, 2 weeks in the summer.

I've never thought about military as being an excuse but for the past many seasons I have been forced to miss a lot of tournaments that could have got me an invite to world's. I will talk with Setstage and skyline and talk about possible things for military personel.

 

[NoPoke]

As a side note, because I know r3skyline is in the Army and I am in the navy, and while we have the attention of a TPCi representative; It would be nice for some sort of waiver for those of us who play and try to earn the play points while being deployed for up to 9 months out of the year. Now this doesn't apply to me this year as I am moving to Japan but I know a few of my shipmates who play and there is no way for them to get 15 play points this season. I don't think the number is unfair I actually enjoy the requirement and I bet Nats is a better tourney then ever. However it would still be interesting to bring this debate up to see what they could do about this.

Though I don't know where it it writ, I'm sure that a services waiver is in place for US Nationals. I believe there is a similar waiver for those that have long term illness that interrupts their accumulation of Play Points.

 

[Ness]

I am not accusing Con or anyone of trying to manipulate the point system, but aren't such problems an easily-predicted outcome of setting some arbitrary point requirement to play Nationals?

It's obvious (at least to me) that some people are going to scramble at the last minute to earn points to play Nats, and some of that is going to involve trying to get their names at tournaments one way or another. And then when it happens, what are we going to do, turn TPCi into a Pokémon CIA or MI6 and launch Prerelease Detectives to ban people?

This problem is a result of bad policy. It stems from the arbitrary Play point requirement. From everything I've ever heard, this requirement was created to reduce the amount of new players and players signing up only to receive goodies which in turn creates more work for the staff.

You solve this problem by allowing someone with insufficient play points to buy into the event for a fee, say $20 or so. That could cover the expenses of additional players signing up. The event would remain free to everyone else that had points. (Other solutions might be reducing the point requirement, or allowing players that played Nationals before to play.)

I certainly doubt that is less feasible than the current idea, which is to create a "Guilty until proven Innocent" Pokemon Criminal Justice system prying into Prerelease tournament records.

 

[ShadowCard]

The requirement is (quite publicly) there so that you don't have utter newbies playing Nationals. How would you like it if you got paired in R1 against somebody playing a theme deck? Thanks to the computer pairing you with that player, your resistance is instantly kaput for the entire tournament. That there is a requirement is perfectly acceptable; it makes sure that people need to a) know how to play, and b) have been playing in that year to get into Nationals.

At 15 points instead of 10? 10 was perfectly fine to gauge practice with the game. 10 means attending quite a few league sessions, a few CCs, even at least 1 T2 event. 15 starts being exclusionary.

Your point would be better if the play point requirement was not lowered for the junior and senior divisions. They need less practice learning the rules of the game and experience with tournaments?

While I do like the play point requirement because it gives importance to sanctioned, non-premier events and promotes league more, it should be used to check skill level without being used as a tool to exclude those who do play.

 

[Mystery Thing]

At 15 points instead of 10? 10 was perfectly fine to gauge practice with the game. 10 means attending quite a few league sessions, a few CCs, even at least 1 T2 event. 15 starts being exclusionary.

Your point would be better if the play point requirement was not lowered for the junior and senior divisions. They need less practice learning the rules of the game and experience with tournaments?

While I do like the play point requirement because it gives importance to sanctioned, non-premier events and promotes league more, it should be used to check skill level without being used as a tool to exclude those who do play.

I certainly have nothing to back this up; this is totally opinion:

I suspect it's the same reason that JR/SR get more travel stuff at Regionals; they are slaves to the travel whimsy of their parents. For the most part, a MA player can get themselves to a league/tournament if they feel like going. That is not the case for a massive majority of JR/SR players. (Yes, there's that whole 15-18 year old window that is messy, but that's not the horse we're kicking right now.)

We all know that this game caters to the kids ahead of the older players. (Again, different other argument on if that SHOULD be the case or not, but I think we can all agree that that IS the case.)

As for pointing at the stop-randoms-from-signing-up-for-loot-and-not-showing-up thing, what divisions were those people overwhelmingly in? Masters. It may have been the parents of the JR/SR who were doing it (again, I don't have the numbers to back that up, it's just a suspicion), but whatever the source, it was the Masters division that is the strongest reason that there's any point requirement at all to start with.


All that said, I wouldn't be against Ness' Points-or-Pay model, as long as players realize that it once again opens the door to a first round theme deck opponent who roasts your resistance before you've even played a game. (Which may be a chance you all are willing to take, for all I know.)

 

[NoPoke]

First round no-shows roast your resistance too

 

[psychup2034]

This problem is a result of bad policy.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the policy. 15 Play Points is really reasonable. You don't even have to place at any events to go to the national-level competition. Even for a semi-competitive player, they will easily hit the 15 play point requirement. The problem is that there are people who do not make a real effort to play during the season and somehow feel like they're entitled to go to NATIONALS. I think it's completely reasonable that a national-level competition be reserved for players that made a modicum of effort to play Pokemon during the season.

I think your opinion is biased by the fact that you are friends with a lot of players who used to be competitive, but took time off from the game. I've rarely heard the complaint that the Play! Point requirement for nationals is bad policy outside of those social circles that have a lot of retired players, which makes up a really small percentage of the population. For everyone else, this isn't really an issue at all. 15 Play! Points is so easy to hit.

 

[Professor Dav]

As a side note, because I know r3skyline is in the Army and I am in the navy, and while we have the attention of a TPCi representative; It would be nice for some sort of waiver for those of us who play and try to earn the play points while being deployed for up to 9 months out of the year. Now this doesn't apply to me this year as I am moving to Japan but I know a few of my shipmates who play and there is no way for them to get 15 play points this season. I don't think the number is unfair I actually enjoy the requirement and I bet Nats is a better tourney then ever. However it would still be interesting to bring this debate up to see what they could do about this.

We have received requests for special dispensations like this in the past, and have granted them with proper evidence of deployment, etc.

We do not advertise such things because honestly, people will most certainly attempt to take advantage, or try and make up other excuses for needing such dispensations.

Honoring our serving military, heck, that's an easy decision.

Thanks,
Professor Dav

 

[Ness]

You can certainly make a case that some modest requirement to play U.S. Nationals is reasonable in principle. However, what you have to realize is these kind of requirements are conducive to people manipulating the system. It is inevitable that there are going to be people scrambling for points, and they're going to do things to get these points which might break some of TPCi's rules.

Why even create an environment, or a structure/policy, whatever you want to call it, that will have such predictable negative consequences? Like many TPCi-related decisions (anyone remember the lack of a 4-prize rule in 2-of-3? 45-min LCQ?), it simply wasn't thought-out well enough.

It seems like the most trivial things can get you in trouble with TPCi, even simple things we say. It's a tense environment and it takes fun out of the game. I don't know what Con & Alex did or didn't do, but if it's anything related to a friend picking up packs at a Prerelease, we need to come to our senses and collectively say "Hey, chill out TPCi. We just want to enjoy a game."

 

[losjackal]

You can certainly make a case that some modest requirement to play U.S. Nationals is reasonable in principle. However, what you have to realize is these kind of requirements are conducive to people manipulating the system. It is inevitable that there are going to be people scrambling for points, and they're going to do things to get these points which might break some of TPCi's rules.

So $20 theoretically keeps the people who just want a free t-shirt out, but lets the players who failed to plan to get the requisite points in time to just stroll in and play.

Fine, that could work to solve part of the problem, but even with the 10-point requirement last year, it seems Nationals is getting into an attendance problem for the Master's division. So maybe it does need to get more exclusionary? The players who have no time to play the game throughout the year might get left out in the cold. Is that not fair?

 

[Ness]

"Attendance problem?" It's almost like an oxymoron.

"The game is so successful, we have to exclude some of these players!"

An attendance "problem" is a sign of a booming, successful game. It's a sign that people are enjoying the game and money is being made. Accommodate the players. Find room for them. Don't try to come up with ways to turn them down!

Whenever these dilemmas are brought up to TPCi, the only answers we'll get are fingerpointing at anonymous "higher-ups" that lurk in the shadows. I can't convince TPCi's invisible higher-ups to increase the budget, nor can any of us. That is the job of a good TPCi employee that is representing the players!

 

[Chairman Kaga]

It seems like the most trivial things can get you in trouble with TPCi, even simple things we say. It's a tense environment and it takes fun out of the game. I don't know what Con & Alex did or didn't do, but if it's anything related to a friend picking up packs at a Prerelease, we need to come to our senses and collectively say "Hey, chill out TPCi. We just want to enjoy a game."

In most MMO games, if your account does something bad, they ban it ASAP. Now, if your account got hacked and it was some dude in China doing all the bad, then you can probably get that ban lifted via an appeals process. But they're still going to shoot first and ask questions later, because it's more important to them to protect the overall integrity of the system over maybe losing a single customer.

I don't see this ban as being anything different than that. I personally think it seems extreme, but I don't know all the facts of the case either. If there's an appeals process, and the players and TPCi are working through that, then let's just leave it at that.

I feel like players are far too eager to drum up a lynch mob at any perceived injustice.

 

[ajhawk]

The one problem about the "shoot first, ask questions later" mantra, is that things may be time sensitive. The current situation is an excellent example. If what the player says is true, he had mapped out a way to get up to 17 play points. However, if this takes three weeks to be resolved, under the assumption that he gets reinstated, he will have missed out on too many Play Points to get to Nats. So, no, there is not plenty of time to get this figured out before Nats.

 

[psychup2034]

You can certainly make a case that some modest requirement to play U.S. Nationals is reasonable in principle. However, what you have to realize is these kind of requirements are conducive to people manipulating the system. It is inevitable that there are going to be people scrambling for points, and they're going to do things to get these points which might break some of TPCi's rules.

If people want to manipulate the system, it's not the system's fault. It's the person's fault.

Think about how ridiculous your argument would sound if it were applied to Championship Points:

• You can certainly make a case that some requirement to play in Worlds is reasonable in principle. However, what you have to realize is that these kinds of requirements are conducive to people manipulating the system. It is inevitable that there are going to be people scrambling for points, and they're going to do things to get these points which might break some of TPCi's rules.

Should the Championship Point requirement to play in Worlds be loosened just because some people are going to cheat to get those points? Should we abolish the Championship Point requirement just because individuals are incentived to use shady means to attain those points? No, that's completely unreasonable. We should punish those people abusing the system instead of changing the system to cater to those people who are abusing it.

Similarly, should the Play! Point requirement to play in Nationals be loosened just because some people are going to cheat to get those points? Should we abolish the Play! Point requirement just because individuals are incentived to use shady means to attain those points? I would argue that, no, it is completely unreasonable. We should punish those people abusing the system instead of changing the system to cater to those people who are abusing it.

A valid and justifiable reason for changing the Play! Point requirement for Nationals would be because the requirement itself is unreasonable, which I strongly feel is not the case. 15 Play! Points is so easy to get. Even casual players can easily get 20-30 Play! Points throughout a season. You have to really make a decision to not play Pokemon during a season to miss that 15 Play! Point requirement, and if you're not really going to be playing during the season, why should you be allowed to participate in the National Championships?

 

[Mykel]

In most MMO games, if your account does something bad, they ban it ASAP. Now, if your account got hacked and it was some dude in China doing all the bad, then you can probably get that ban lifted via an appeals process. But they're still going to shoot first and ask questions later, because it's more important to them to protect the overall integrity of the system over maybe losing a single customer.

I don't see this ban as being anything different than that. I personally think it seems extreme, but I don't know all the facts of the case either. If there's an appeals process, and the players and TPCi are working through that, then let's just leave it at that.

I feel like players are far too eager to drum up a lynch mob at any perceived injustice.

I don't see how you can so easily draw a line between this and an MMO. An MMO is entirely dealt with online, where such a ban

a) Can be appealed much more easily (US postal service, really?)
b) Will be corrected much more quickly, as there's not only the faster appeal process, but also less hoops to jump through with the many mysterious shadows of TPCi
c) As the time banned will be much shorter, these accidental bans will be much more insignificant and provide much less harm to the player.

In short, with such a convoluted ban-appeal process that requires way more work for both ends, you'd think bans would be more of a last-resort, more calmly and professionally done (like notifying the player, etc.), and only happen for large-scale infractions.


EDIT: Also, psychup, I think the notion that a causual player should 'easily get 20-30 Play! Points' throughout a season is absurd. Please consider not everyone's distance from events, income, ability to travel (especially for Masters 15-17) and free time are the same.

 

[Bilbo Baggins]

I don't see this ban as being anything different than that. I personally think it seems extreme, but I don't know all the facts of the case either. If there's an appeals process, and the players and TPCi are working through that, then let's just leave it at that.

I feel like players are far too eager to drum up a lynch mob at any perceived injustice.

The real problem is if this happens in the future to others. What if someone that is innocent receives a suspension/penalty just before Nationals/Worlds even tho they are innocent? The appeal will take till after the competition is over, and the player will have missed out on a big event.

 

[cabd]

a) Can be appealed much more easily (US postal service, really?)

You clearly have never been unfairly banned from a non-western MMO service. If you think sending a letter in the mail is bad, try a place that requires you to talk to an employee in person at wherever their american moderation center is.

 

[Mykel]

You clearly have never been unfairly banned from a non-western MMO service. If you think sending a letter in the mail is bad, try a place that requires you to talk to an employee in person at wherever their American moderation center is.

Yet I have. And it was just fine!

 

[Vegeta ss4]

We have received requests for special dispensations like this in the past, and have granted them with proper evidence of deployment, etc.

We do not advertise such things because honestly, people will most certainly attempt to take advantage, or try and make up other excuses for needing such dispensations.

Honoring our serving military, heck, that's an easy decision.

Thanks,
Professor Dav

The thing to being in the military isn't JUST deployments. There is "duty" days which happen all the time during weekend's. There are unscheduled underways, grueling test cycles and unit training which is frequent. To say show Proof of a deployment as the only excuse seems flawed. I will also let you know the sharing of deployment orders is against UCMJ(military law). They are confidential above a need to know. I think the correct route to go is to verify whether someone IS in the military. Being in the military you really have no idea what events you can go to due to scheduling and surprise schedules. I really want to know your thought process of allowing military personel into US nationals without a worry about player points.