Fall Regional Prizes Anounced

[z-man]

There are less individuals here that can see the positives because of a handful of individuals do have the ability to see both sides of the issue. IMO If you can't see the positives and the negatives of an issue and you can't understand where the other side is coming from, you shouldn't be posting.

Really now? Let's say that TPCi decided do something extreme... like ban the last 5 people who sign up to every event. There are very few positives in that decision, so should we simply not post about it because we fail to see the positives from this decision? We all have the right to complain and we should do so. Our complaints are for the good of the game. If we all remain silent, where will the game go? It will go in the direction that a vocal minority wants it to (and where the higher-ups at TPCi want it to go). If we see a negative, we will address that negative because we want it to go away. Many of us are not convinced that this change will have any net positive for the longevity of the game and what not. Please do not try to quiet the opposition.

 

[evil psyduck]

Like Mr. Hornung has mentioned, it is incredibly frustrating to see certain people defending TPCi no matter what they do.

Your claim is completely incorrect.

It is no more incorrect then the first quote in this post.

 

[SMP88]

It is no more incorrect then the first quote in this post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

You should read this article.

 

[Diaz]

It is no more incorrect then the first quote in this post.

Which ones from the list that was posted do you think were bad ideas? Or do you defend all of them?

(I honestly hope you pick a few of the bad ones, it would be refreshing to see.)

 

[losjackal]

psychup2034, that is an excellent list. I appreciate your continued postings to this thread.

Siding with LOLZ for a moment, your list has some bias to it. z-man actually reinforced the fact that a certain set of players will always see something that they want to go away as a negative. The posts reflect that they are unable to understand or even acknowledge any benefits to some of the decisions. To pull from your list:

• Cutting scholarships from Regionals in 2011-2012. Generally viewed as bad by community.

This is the net effect. What isn't being mentioned is what was the positive outcome? Maybe this was a necessary step to split Regionals into two, which people liked? And probably even laid the groundwork for three this year?

• Splitting Regionals into 3 so that the "far" Regionals requires a flight for 2012-2013. Generally viewed as bad by community.

There's the first real bias of your perspective. Here in Chicago, I can drive to Indiana, Missouri, and Wisconsin....no flight necessary. I can't speak for everyone else, but we're not all lumped into your viewpoint either. Plus, it seems people aren't recognizing that you don't have to go to all 3 Regionals this year. The 400-point threshold took care of that, meaning you are not constantly jockeying for Top 40 position with the other players who indeed may hit all three. Therefore a third opportunity to get a Best Finish can only be a good thing. It's not TPC's fault that third possibility is perhaps far away for some or even many players.

• Failure to go to Top 32 at Worlds in 2012, despite 127 masters. Generally viewed as bad by community.

Another bias here, meaning they didn't do what you wanted them to. But I'm not sure if you're saying 127 is close enough to 128, or that anything over 100 or 110 players deserves a deeper cut? I'd say either way, they are clearly in control of their attendance figures (especially via LCQ), and are exerting the level of control they want over how the tournament plays out.

• Lack of communication about Fall 2012 Battle Roads CP structure until the last minute. Generally viewed as bad by community.

Yeah, this one was a bummer, but did it really hurt anyone? Only the most die-hard players really cared I think, and that isn't the majority. The majority of players made plans to go to the Battle Road anyway, since it was the first tournament of the new season. But that leads to...

• Failure to truly diminish the importance of Battle Roads in the new Championship Point structure for 2012-2013. Generally viewed as bad by community.

So, some people were wanting them to become unimportant, and they didn't, so that's a bad thing? I guess that's why the aforementioned players were on edge to find out the value at the last minute. But your statement of "failure to diminish" even inherently reveals your bias. Was there any true business reason why it would make sense for TPC to do this? Because offhand, I would think attendance at Battle Roads would plummet if they had no CP value.


To Diaz' question, yes, I think these are defensible. I am wondering what they are planning with the different prizes based on age division, because I still say they are operating with positive intent. The comments like they just "threw a dart" truly reflect a level of immaturity and lack of acknowledgement of a bigger picture. The management of P!P aren't looking to do a bad job, and the rising attendance figures are proof they are having success. Those 1005 Masters at Nationals was awesome, so they are continuing to make the moves they see fit to have that or more as Juniors and Seniors age up. Nitpick the young masters guardian loophole if you want, threaten to leave for MTG if you're only in it for the prizes, etc. etc. But at least give them respect as people trying to design and operate a game that works within all of their constraints, most of which the ordinary player doesn't have the slightest clue of.

 

[Diaz]

So you really think that TPCi got none of these decisions wrong? I agree that each of these decisions have some sort of justification. That doesn't mean that they are all good decisions.

I don't think Psychup was arguing whether or not the decisions were good or bad. He was, I think, saying that the players tend to like or not like decisions on a case by case basis. This seems dissimilar to the attitude of some members of the community who seem to support tpci no matter what they decide.

 

[psychup2034]

• Cutting scholarships from Regionals in 2011-2012. Generally viewed as bad by community.

This is the net effect. What isn't being mentioned is what was the positive outcome? Maybe this was a necessary step to split Regionals into two, which people liked? And probably even laid the groundwork for three this year?

Yes, but the "general" view was that this was a bad decision. If you went to New England Fall Regionals last year, you could hear the grumblings all day about the decision. You can argue that the scholarship cut wasn't up to TPCi, but the people above TPCi, but that still doesn't change the fact that it was a decision viewed a negative light by a majority of players.

• Splitting Regionals into 3 so that the "far" Regionals requires a flight for 2012-2013. Generally viewed as bad by community.

There's the first real bias of your perspective. Here in Chicago, I can drive to Indiana, Missouri, and Wisconsin....no flight necessary. I can't speak for everyone else, but we're not all lumped into your viewpoint either. Plus, it seems people aren't recognizing that you don't have to go to all 3 Regionals this year. The 400-point threshold took care of that, meaning you are not constantly jockeying for Top 40 position with the other players who indeed may hit all three. Therefore a third opportunity to get a Best Finish can only be a good thing. It's not TPC's fault that third possibility is perhaps far away for some or even many players.

In fact, my perspective is that "I don't care how many Regionals there are; I have enough time/money to go to all of them." I expressed my personal perspective in a post (linked here). My opinion is that I can go to whatever tournament I want, and the cost doesn't make a difference to me. If it were truly up to me, I'd have 6 Regionals so that I could go to all of them and load up on Championship Points. However, I know for a fact that the cost is a huge factor for many players in my area. I can really sympathize with those players in the Western U.S. and Canada who have to travel 10+ hours by car (or take a plane) to get to that third Regionals.

I chose my words carefully when I said "generally viewed as bad by community," because the general viewpoint is that this was a bad decision. There's one particular post that clearly highlights the frustration of parents with the 3 Regionals split. (Linked here.) If you read that entire thread (and keep track of everyone who posted, you will see that the majority view is that splitting Regionals into 3 is not a popular idea.

"You don't have to go to all 3 Regionals" is a poor argument, as outlined in another post (linked here).

• Failure to go to Top 32 at Worlds in 2012, despite 127 masters. Generally viewed as bad by community.

Another bias here, meaning they didn't do what you wanted them to. But I'm not sure if you're saying 127 is close enough to 128, or that anything over 100 or 110 players deserves a deeper cut? I'd say either way, they are clearly in control of their attendance figures (especially via LCQ), and are exerting the level of control they want over how the tournament plays out.

If what I wanted them to do is consistent with a "good decision," then by definition, the fact that they didn't do what I wanted made their decision a "bad decision." That is the case here. With 127 Masters, almost all of the 5-2s missed the cut. There is a majority opinion in Pokemon (I can't find the original post) that is is bad when a majority of X-2s miss cut at Worlds. If they had cut to Top 32, all of the 5-2s would've made it. The majority opinion among players (especially those who were playing in Worlds) was that a Top 32 cut would have been better for the game.

I challenge you to find someone to give me an argument as to why overriding to Top 32 when there are 127 Masters is bad, other than the bad "that's the way TOM was designed" argument.

• Lack of communication about Fall 2012 Battle Roads CP structure until the last minute. Generally viewed as bad by community.

Yeah, this one was a bummer, but did it really hurt anyone? Only the most die-hard players really cared I think, and that isn't the majority. The majority of players made plans to go to the Battle Road anyway, since it was the first tournament of the new season. But that leads to...

Just because a decision didn't hurt anyway, it doesn't mean that it wasn't a bad decision. The lack of information hurts parents, in the sense that they have to take time off from work to take their kids to Battle Roads (if they're worth CPs), and no information is released until 24 hours before. Regardless, let me give you a couple examples of how this has hurt people in other ways. (Example 1, Example 2)

• Failure to truly diminish the importance of Battle Roads in the new Championship Point structure for 2012-2013. Generally viewed as bad by community.

So, some people were wanting them to become unimportant, and they didn't, so that's a bad thing? I guess that's why the aforementioned players were on edge to find out the value at the last minute. But your statement of "failure to diminish" even inherently reveals your bias. Was there any true business reason why it would make sense for TPC to do this? Because offhand, I would think attendance at Battle Roads would plummet if they had no CP value.

It's a bad thing that they didn't take Battle Roads Championship Points away (or at least cut the best finish limit to 2 or 3) because of the reasons listed in an earlier topic (linked here). Once again, recall that I said that this decision was "generally viewed as bad by community." The number of thanks that the linked post received (and the subsequent discussion) clearly show that the community generally views TPCi's decision to not really diminish the importance of Battle Roads as a bad decision.

Yes, there was business sense for TPCi to diminish the importance of Battle Roads. The reason is that the lengthening season over the past 2 years is driving younger players away. The sentiments expressed by this parent (linked here) is the majority opinion of parents of the non-ultra-competitive Juniors/Seniors. At the same time TPCi wants to increase the growth of the Juniors/Seniors divisions, it is simultaneously taking steps with its tournament structure to drive those players and their parents away.

 

[losjackal]

Diaz, unless we're talking about legal or ethical issues, there is no right or wrong. There are only opinions. I do have an opinion of "what would be nice". Of course it would be nice to have scholarships. Of course it would be nice to have Top 64 cut at Worlds. Of course it would be nice to let more people have travel stipends. Honestly, the business world rarely gets to indulge in things that would only be nice. Therefore other prevailing reasons must exist for those to not happen.

psychup2034, I feel we can continue to respectfully debate each point, but I want to focus on one. Well two actually, but they are related. You cited the frustrated parent who was SHOUTING about the amount of travel they have to do, and the people talking about the overvaluing of Battle Roads when figuring out who gets a Worlds invite.

The fact is, both of those arguments were made in July, before it was announced it wouldn't be Top 40 anymore. Competing last year was indeed brutal, just like ELO but in a different way. People still constantly checked the Rating & Rankings page to see who was in the Top 40. It was very much a game of keeping up with everyone else, and to do so, you needed to get the most Best Finishes possible. All of the arguments you cited above were true and valid. They just aren't as applicable this year.

This year, you just have to keep an eye on your own performance. I did some math on what it would take to get 400 points, given some reasonable Best Finish limits:

• 6 BR average 4th place: 6x10 = 60 CP
• 4 City average 8th place: 4x20 = 80 CP
• 2 State average 12th place: 2x30 = 60 CP
• 2 Regional average 12th place: 2x50 = 100 CP
• 1 National 64th place: 1x30 = 30 CP

Add up the above. That is 330 points total, for what I believe is a consistently good performance by a competitive player. 330 isn't enough, though. How to get to 400? Well if they finished Top 64 at Worlds last month, they were awarded 50 CP's to start off the season. Leaving them the challenge to at least improve on the above by 20 points. 8th place in a State instead of 12th place will take care of that. A player could even forego those 60 points from Battle Roads by finishing 2nd place at a single Regionals rather than 12th.

The 400 points makes a huge difference for the better this year as to what a player needs to do to earn an invitation.

 

[psychup2034]

• 6 BR average 4th place: 6x10 = 60 CP

And how many Battle Roads does a player have to go to to get 60 points from Battle Roads? Probably at least 10. That's at least 5 more weekends of Pokemon. That's 5 more weeks of strain on a Junior/Senior's parent, especially since those weeks of Battle Roads happen around the same time as school starting (in the fall) and final exams (in the spring).

If TPCi's impetus for distributing prize support to heavily favor Juniors/Seniors was to get them to stay in the game, truly reducing the length of a season that a competitive player has to play to make Worlds would be a good step to take in the right direction.

 

[losjackal]

Perhaps 10+ is accurate for Masters, but for a competitive Junior or Senior, the answer is indeed more like at least 6 to be able to earn upwards of 60 points (spread out over both the Autumn and Spring series). I'm basing that on what I know of the Juniors who aged up to Seniors this year, and the Juniors I know who are still winning in their division. Remember, this is an average of 4th place! Two 1st place victories is half of that amount. I know of two very good Juniors who both earned 30 points this past weekend alone. Of course, that means the other players aren't walking away with 15 points that day, but maybe 12 or 10 or 8 depending on attendance.

But let's be real for a moment: we're talking about competing for a WORLDS invitation here. Not only do you have to be dedicated, and good, but you also have to be a bit lucky. If you want to bring up TPCi's intention of appealing to Juniors and Seniors, it is not about CP's and the Worlds invite. That debate was just about getting them to attend States/Regionals/Nationals in the first place.

 

[Mystery Thing]

I challenge you to find someone to give me an argument as to why overriding to Top 32 when there are 127 Masters is bad, other than the bad "that's the way TOM was designed" argument.

Because what's the point of having a rule book that outlines how all of your tournaments are to be run if you then throw it out the window once you hit the grandest stage of them all?

For this one anyway, blame whoever the player was that said they were coming and then no-showed, not TPCI. If mysterious player 128 had shown up, I'm sure they would have done a T32. I fully understand why it was a wildly unpopular decision, but I disagree with calling it the "wrong" decision. "Eh, close enough" is a very dangerous precedent to be setting when it comes to how many players get into a cut.

(Insert just-let-all-X-2s-into-the-cut argument here)

 

[Jaeger]

Because what's the point of having a rule book that outlines how all of your tournaments are to be run if you then throw it out the window once you hit the grandest stage of them all?

For this one anyway, blame whoever the player was that said they were coming and then no-showed, not TPCI. If mysterious player 128 had shown up, I'm sure they would have done a T32. I fully understand why it was a wildly unpopular decision, but I disagree with calling it the "wrong" decision. "Eh, close enough" is a very dangerous precedent to be setting when it comes to how many players get into a cut.

(Insert just-let-all-X-2s-into-the-cut argument here)

How about a Top 32 was told to us in advance...I didn't even know it was a top 16 until round 3. Granted it worked out really well for me, but I'm able to put myself in the place of being 17-32 and honestly didn't know if I was or not till I won my last round to finish 6-1

 

[psychup2034]

Because what's the point of having a rule book that outlines how all of your tournaments are to be run if you then throw it out the window once you hit the grandest stage of them all?

What's the point of using a GPS that outlines how you get from point A to point B if you then throw it out the window once it tells you to drive into a lake? Here's a list of people blindly following the directions set by their GPS: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, etc.

What's the point of having laws that outline how citizens should behave if you then throw it out the window once a court hears the case? Here's a list of court cases that have been overturned: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, etc.

What's the point of rules in a professional sports leagues if you then throw it out the window mid-season once players/official realize that the particular rule is detrimental. Here's a list of mid-season rules changes in professional sports leagues: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, etc.

Now let me answer your question: "what's the point of having a rule book that outlines how all of your tournaments are to be run if you then throw it out the window once you hit the grandest stage of them all?"

The point of having a rule book is so that in normal circumstances (for less consequential tournaments), there are a set of guidelines to follow. However, sometimes discretion needs to be used to determine how the rules should be enforced, or whether certain rules need to be overridden. Just because a rule is made, that doesn't make the rule right in every circumstance. There may be better options, and those options should be taken by a discerning party who is in change of enforcing the rules. Let me list some instances where the PTO/Pokemon/TPCi/OP overrode the rules to make the right decision.

• For example, a controversial ruling that happened this year at US Nationals in Top 16 awarded a match win to the player who technically should have lost (match slip already signed) by the letter of the law. Yet discretion was used by the tournament organizers for a variety of reasons (including to save face, protect the integrity of the game, etc.) to award the person would "would have won" with the win, instead of the person who actually won on a technicality by the letter of the law.
• Another example is the decision to give Top 33-64 in Masters at Worlds Championship points. Technically, Top 33-64 should not have gotten any points, because the number of players necessary for 128 was not reached. (If the argument is that the 128th player registered and dropped so the kicker did come into effect, then there should have by Top 32 by the same logic.) Big props to TPCi for making the right decision here by overriding a rule that they had previously made. (Full disclosure: I was one of those that benefited from this post facto rule change.)
• A third example is the decision to hand out a Worlds invite to those players who were tied in CPs with the 40th ranked player in North America (50th for Europe). OP realized that the incentives of the ELO system and Championship Point system were different, so using ELO as the tiebreaker was pretty silly. Props again to OP for making a last minute decision to override a rule they previously made and allow a couple more people into Worlds.

People (yes, even people affiliated with Pokemon) are able to make overrides to the rules based on their discretion when the situation calls for it. It was just unfortunate that it didn't happen in the case of Top 32 for Worlds last year in Masters.

---------- Post added 09/18/2012 at 01:02 AM ----------

Diaz hit the nail on the head.

Players tend to like/dislike or agree/disagree with TPCi's decisions on a case-by-case basis. Often times, the forum moderators here will never express dislike/disagreement with TPCi's decisions, which makes their viewpoints seem extremely myopic and biased. Sure, they are bound by their contracts or agreements, but those people need to understand that their posts are inherently biased by definition.

 

[Mystery Thing]

What's the point of using a GPS that outlines how you get from point A to point B if you then throw it out the window once it tells you to drive into a lake? Here's a list of people blindly following the directions set by their GPS: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, etc.

What's the point of having laws that outline how citizens should behave if you then throw it out the window once a court hears the case? Here's a list of court cases that have been overturned: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, etc.

What's the point of rules in a professional sports leagues if you then throw it out the window mid-season once players/official realize that the particular rule is detrimental. Here's a list of mid-season rules changes in professional sports leagues: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, etc.

Now let me answer your question: "what's the point of having a rule book that outlines how all of your tournaments are to be run if you then throw it out the window once you hit the grandest stage of them all?"

The point of having a rule book is so that in normal circumstances (for less consequential tournaments), there are a set of guidelines to follow. However, sometimes discretion needs to be used to determine how the rules should be enforced, or whether certain rules need to be overridden. Just because a rule is made, that doesn't make the rule right in every circumstance. There may be better options, and those options should be taken by a discerning party who is in change of enforcing the rules. Let me list some instances where the PTO/Pokemon/TPCi/OP overrode the rules to make the right decision.

• For example, a controversial ruling that happened this year at US Nationals in Top 16 awarded a match win to the player who technically should have lost (match slip already signed) by the letter of the law. Yet discretion was used by the tournament organizers for a variety of reasons (including to save face, protect the integrity of the game, etc.) to award the person would "would have won" with the win, instead of the person who actually won on a technicality by the letter of the law.
• Another example is the decision to give Top 33-64 in Masters at Worlds Championship points. Technically, Top 33-64 should not have gotten any points, because the number of players necessary for 128 was not reached. (If the argument is that the 128th player registered and dropped so the kicker did come into effect, then there should have by Top 32 by the same logic.) Big props to TPCi for making the right decision here by overriding a rule that they had previously made. (Full disclosure: I was one of those that benefited from this post facto rule change.)
• A third example is the decision to hand out a Worlds invite to those players who were tied in CPs with the 40th ranked player in North America (50th for Europe). OP realized that the incentives of the ELO system and Championship Point system were different, so using ELO as the tiebreaker was pretty silly. Props again to OP for making a last minute decision to override a rule they previously made and allow a couple more people into Worlds.

People (yes, even people affiliated with Pokemon) are able to make overrides to the rules based on their discretion when the situation calls for it. It was just unfortunate that it didn't happen in the case of Top 32 for Worlds last year in Masters.

Wow.

You just compared this to people being stupid enough to drive into a lake, a bunch of sports rules that didn't change in the middle of the season (which is what this would be), two rule changes that ~were~ midseason which were either a change BACK, not a first-time change, or a change away from something that pretty much broke the game, and then to segregation and interracial marriages.

YOU JUST COMPARED TOP CUT OF A PLAYING CARD GAME TOURNAMENT TO SEGREGATION AND INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.

For somebody who has spent the entire thread screaming that a $10 difference and a $500 difference are OMG TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS?

Wow. That's all I can say to you. Wow.

 

[Mystery Thing]

How about a Top 32 was told to us in advance...

Where? It was certainly never announced as a T32 at Worlds.

 

[psychup2034]

Wow. You are making me laugh.

You just compared this to people being stupid enough to drive into a lake, a bunch of sports rules that didn't change in the middle of the season (which is what this would be), a single rule change that ~was~ midseason which was a change BACK, not a first-time change, and then to segregation and interracial marriages.

YOU JUST COMPARED TOP CUT OF A PLAYING CARD GAME TOURNAMENT TO SEGREGATION AND INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.

Wow. That's all I can say to you. Wow.

Make a counterargument. Don't deflect.

Stop laughing and respond to the points being made. If you can't grasp the other analogies, then respond to the Pokemon-related part of my post. Your selective evasion of my points only weakens your argument.

Now let me answer your question: "what's the point of having a rule book that outlines how all of your tournaments are to be run if you then throw it out the window once you hit the grandest stage of them all?"

The point of having a rule book is so that in normal circumstances (for less consequential tournaments), there are a set of guidelines to follow. However, sometimes discretion needs to be used to determine how the rules should be enforced, or whether certain rules need to be overridden. Just because a rule is made, that doesn't make the rule right in every circumstance. There may be better options, and those options should be taken by a discerning party who is in change of enforcing the rules. Let me list some instances where the PTO/Pokemon/TPCi/OP overrode the rules to make the right decision.

• For example, a controversial ruling that happened this year at US Nationals in Top 16 awarded a match win to the player who technically should have lost (match slip already signed) by the letter of the law. Yet discretion was used by the tournament organizers for a variety of reasons (including to save face, protect the integrity of the game, etc.) to award the person would "would have won" with the win, instead of the person who actually won on a technicality by the letter of the law.
• Another example is the decision to give Top 33-64 in Masters at Worlds Championship points. Technically, Top 33-64 should not have gotten any points, because the number of players necessary for 128 was not reached. (If the argument is that the 128th player registered and dropped so the kicker did come into effect, then there should have by Top 32 by the same logic.) Big props to TPCi for making the right decision here by overriding a rule that they had previously made. (Full disclosure: I was one of those that benefited from this post facto rule change.)
• A third example is the decision to hand out a Worlds invite to those players who were tied in CPs with the 40th ranked player in North America (50th for Europe). OP realized that the incentives of the ELO system and Championship Point system were different, so using ELO as the tiebreaker was pretty silly. Props again to OP for making a last minute decision to override a rule they previously made and allow a couple more people into Worlds.

People (yes, even people affiliated with Pokemon) are able to make overrides to the rules based on their discretion when the situation calls for it. It was just unfortunate that it didn't happen in the case of Top 32 for Worlds last year in Masters.

 

[Mystery Thing]

Make a counterargument. Don't deflect.

Stop laughing and respond to the points being made. If you can't grasp the other analogies, then respond to the Pokemon-related part of my post. Your selective evasion of my points only weakens your argument.

1) And that was a decision I don't agree with.

2) Not a rule change, that's a prizing structure change.

3) So if they hadn't changed the rules a the CP/ELO cutoff, then there wouldn't have been this problem at Worlds. By changing the rules the first time, they compounded the so-called "problem."


Actually, you know what? I'm not going to bother, because THERE IS NO ARGUING WITH YOU. Everything you don't like is "wrong." Not "something you disagree with," not "something you feel could be changed," no. Just outright "wrong."

Any argument I could possibly make would be like arguing with a brick wall. There is no point in it.

 

[psychup2034]

So if they hadn't changed the rules a the CP/ELO cutoff, then there wouldn't have been this problem at Worlds. By changing the rules the first time, they compounded the so-called "problem."


Actually, you know what? I'm not going to bother, because THERE IS NO ARGUING WITH YOU. Everything you don't like is "wrong." Not "something you disagree with," not "something you feel could be changed," no. Just outright "wrong."

Any argument I could possibly make would be like arguing with a brick wall. There is no point in it.

There is debating with me. Losjackal and I are having one right in this thread. He took the time to respond to my points, instead of using various way to deflect the argument. Likewise, I have taken the time to respond to his points in an articulate way. I have conceded arguments before on the 'gym, and I've also apologized to others for being inaccurate in my arguments.

I'll take this one as a check in the win column and move on.

 

[Mystery Thing]

I'll take this one as a check in the win column and move on.

You do that. Anything that means I can stop having to deal with you in this thread is a win for me.

 

[psychup2034]

1) And that was a decision I don't agree with.

2) Not a rule change, that's a prizing structure change.

3) So if they hadn't changed the rules a the CP/ELO cutoff, then there wouldn't have been this problem at Worlds. By changing the rules the first time, they compounded the so-called "problem."

It looks like you changed your post after I made mine, so I'll respond.

1) It doesn't matter if you or I agree to the decision or not. That wasn't the point. The point was to illustrate a situation where someone from Pokemon used their discretion and good judgment to override the rules (which were not designed with the peculiar situation in mind). It is my opinion that by overriding the rules, Pokemon saved a lot of face/embarrassment and protected the integrity of the game, two things that are good outcomes.

2) Sure. So discretion can not only be used to override the rules (when the rules need to be overridden), but also prizes (when the prizes need to be modified).

3) And yet they used discretion when this problem arose and modified the rules so that the invite structure was more fair. (Removing the tiebreak condition is more fair because the incentive structure for tournament attendance based on CPs and ELOs were different.)

I'm saying that some discretion could have been used to override Masters in Worlds to Top 32, given that there is precedent for using discretion to override certain rules in Pokemon. This is an argument against your original point: "Because what's the point of having a rule book that outlines how all of your tournaments are to be run if you then throw it out the window once you hit the grandest stage of them all?"

---------- Post added 09/18/2012 at 01:29 AM ----------

You do that. Anything that means I can stop having to deal with you in this thread is a win for me.

This was a common reaction I received while doing model UN and other debate competitions in college. I look forward to our next encounter on another topic.