Fall Regional Prizes Anounced

[Jaeger]

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

Don't quote me but I want to say it said Top 32 would be played out Saturday night. I know I read it, when I find the source I'll lyk

 

[losjackal]

Trying to sum up what was just said, good points by both sides:

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.

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.

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.

Yes, in theory discretion could've been used. Another word for it is judgment. Judges make decisions, and sometimes they are overturned. It's all still based on experience, precedent, beliefs, interpretation, etc. But when someone calls a judgment "right" or "wrong", they are putting their opinions on top of that judgment.


Please re-read what Mystery Thing said. He said he disagreed with calling it the "wrong" decision, and cautioned against altering the rules for how many players get into a cut. I believe this comes from experience. Here are his listed credentials:

Regionals: Western Canada 2007/2008/2010 Head Judge/2012 Masters Head Judge; Mountain West 2011 Masters Judge
CDN Nationals: 2007 Top 8, 2008 Seniors Judge, 2010 Masters Judge, 2011 Masters Head Judge
USA Nationals: 2007-2012 Staff
Worlds 2008-2012 Staff​

I have to believe he knows what he's talking about; that his opinion on this matter is rooted in some experience and also vision of what precent it could set. Similarly I expect the people who ran Worlds are equally qualified to have made the ruling in this matter. At this point, we're talking about tolerance here. Tolerance of accepting changes to the game, and tolerance of accepting that people see things differently than you. (And I'm directing this at both sides, because some people are more vocal and less tactful than others in their responses. That is a Sisyphian battle though, because there is always going to be suddenly someone new or someone frustrated enough to provoke the next round.)


Now, the one counterpoint I want to make now is this one...

• 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.)

It wasn't just Masters; Seniors and Juniors got it too, and they were nowhere near 128. So I think it has less to do with being near 128 than it does with the CP structure and values changing, and realizing that 33-64 also deserved a head start when attempting to achieve the newly-decided 400 point threshold this year. The three divisions were treated the same, yay!

Or, let's say Masters did have 128, and 33-64 earned points when Juniors and Seniors would not have. Maybe the decision then could have been 400 CP points for Masters and 350 for Juniors and Seniors. Similar net effect, but different yearlong implications. The three divisions were treated differently! Boo!

Okay, maybe the Masters would have not booed the latter, because the smart ones realize that the Juniors and Seniors play fewer rounds, have less attendance, get fewer kickers, etc. Agreed? If so, right there is some precedent for treating the age divisions differently, even for prizing. It's justifiable. Players still may not like it, and they may not even comprehend why it makes any kind of sense, because there is more being considered in these decisions than what players are privy to. Case in point: all those people raging in July about 3 Regionals? They didn't have the big picture about all the changes being made...

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.

Biased is not the same as well-informed. I'd actually go the other way...given a dearth of information, people are limited to form their opinions on their limited knowledge, their experience, and their inherent self-interests. Bias has a greater tendency to appear there. If you and I are pleasantly debating here in the middle, it's easy to see how one side sees the other as myopic. The flaw in that scenario is that the TPCi side has more information than the player side. So by comparison they are the ones than can be the least myopic, actually. The OP brass are paid to consider what is best for the company and what is best for the players and balance it all out. The players? Not so much...they only are expected to consider what is best for them, and choose whether to play or not. (Certainly the best players in the community rise above this minimal expectation and truly contribute. We all know who they are.)

 

[LegendCreator]

This will be difficult for my little group of Masters...We were depending on the paid trip if anyone one of us got invite and or won in a bigger tourny...I'm all for making it better for the younger people but at least give us some sort of chance to get there. :/

 

[Lawman]

What are the options here, Lawman? Play under a PTO who approves of the division getting less prize support? You're saying that we should continue to shop at a store that the store manager is always belittling to us :nonono:. Eventually, as a customer, one decides to instead go to the store where the staff appreciates them. If it means that the former store closes, that's what happens when you offer bad customer service. A new store comes to take its place.

The answer to your question is "yes, give the PTO the cold shoulder" if they decide they do not wish to represent the division that carries their attendance. How does it hurt/help? Hopefully the attendance shift from that PTO's location to another PTO's location will be a wake-up call that the PTO needs to start being more considerate to the Masters division. If not, just like Prof Clay said, "In the short term if the competitive players decide to quit tomorrow, there would be a new group of players who would fill that void..." the same applies to TOs. If a TO would rather hold onto the opinion that drives Masters away from their event instead of change the opinion, then when that TO stops running events there will be a new TO who will step up to fill that void. If the PTo really does consider the Masters division, it will not go that far.

Why would they stop running events? Juniors and Seniors are the PTO's focus, were there not enough to support continuing the events?


I do not have a problem with my state's PTO.

However, there are PTOs in this thread who think that because Masters who are willing to carpool and room together to travel places would not appreciate the rewards for travelling to the venue. A PTO who doesn't appreciate players making the effort to travel to his/her events should not get used to seeing those players. If players are not satisfied particular PTOs supporting this decision, it is better for those players to travel to an event hosted by a PTO who will appreciate the attendance bump.


I went with what ChaosJim said on that topic.


losjackal, I always enjoy reading your posts. They are a breath of fresh air.

You really hit the nail on the head. TPCi has an open and unapologetic favoritism for the Juniors and Seniors. It is like TPCi joins in with our friends who reply "you still play Pokemon? Isn't that a kids game? how old are you?" but everyone was fine with that because no one could dispute that they had a soft spot for Masters too because the prizes were kept even. Sometimes it was accepted grudgingly because Masters keeps getting bigger and even excellent records began missing prizes while Juniors don't even have to play for their prizes. Every so often, someone will point out how TPCi saved the Masters division, the professor program, and all of organized play, but that was almost 8 years ago. Now it looks as though TPCi has turned its back on the Masters division and decided that it is worth rewarding less. The longer you stay with the game, the less you get--Seniors will continue to play the game after aging up and realizing that you have to play longer and harder for less prizes? Not even increased CPs for the effort.

I started a league when I was 18. I do not know how it happened, but after a few years some of the juniors and seniors wanted to go to tournaments that I had advertised but their parents had weekend jobs and could not arrange it. Their parents looked to me to take their kids to them. Besides me, who still provides rides to those kids who are now Masters, there are parents at my league who carpool 2 or more kids who are not theirs to league each week and even get out to tournaments in other states. That Juniors and Seniors are not as capable of getting carpools and arranging hotel plans is simply not true.

Let me put this in simple terms/words. PTOs may understand WHY TPCi has done what they have done, but that doesnt mean we all AGREE with every move. See the difference???

PTOs have their own PRIVATE, NDA protected area where "we" get to interact closer with OP brass. We give opinions on all sorts of topics there. Our opinions are usually considered, but the bottom line is Pete, Dave, Dan, Mike, Angela, et al have a JOB to do and BOSSES and BUDGETS and LEGAL to answer to too! You cannot make everyone happy on all decisions.....someone is going to be upset on some.

I love this game. I love the players. I love the PTOs, TOs, LLs and other volunteers. I love the guys and gals at TPCi P!P. I support them all the time. Doesnt mean I have to agree with them all the time either. Sorta like politics. :biggrin:

Keith

 

[NoPoke]

Don't quote me but I want to say it said Top 32 would be played out Saturday night. I know I read it, when I find the source I'll lyk

I saw that and read it as full intention to run a T32 too: I was surprised when it didn't happen. Not having a T32 was correct by the floor rules but that didn't reduce my expectation or disappointment.

 

[psychup2034]

Yes, in theory discretion could've been used. Another word for it is judgment. Judges make decisions, and sometimes they are overturned. It's all still based on experience, precedent, beliefs, interpretation, etc. But when someone calls a judgment "right" or "wrong", they are putting their opinions on top of that judgment.

Please re-read what Mystery Thing said. He said he disagreed with calling it the "wrong" decision, and cautioned against altering the rules for how many players get into a cut.

I don't have time right now to fully respond to your entire post. I will do that in a couple hours when I'm a little less busy. However, I do want to point out that I never called the decision to not cut to Top 32 "wrong." That was just Mystery Thing putting words in my mouth. I called that decision "bad," I called that decision "unfortunate," but I didn't say it was "wrong." Implicitly putting words into my mouth is something that I would expect from Mystery Thing (after all, he just did), but it's not something I would expect from you, losjackal.

Like you, I understand that TPCi's decisions can be viewed as good/bad/fortunate/unfortunate, but it's inappropriate to label those decisions as right/wrong for the purposes of this discussion.

Search through my posts in this thread. I used the word "wrong" once. That was to demonstrate to evil psyduck that he was dead wrong about his claim that some players will bash TPCi no matter what TPCi does.

 

[GodBlessAmerica]

You know what I think would have been a good idea? Do what the VGC did from 2010-2012. For the 2nd-4th participants in each age group give a $300 stipend, and for those under the age of 18 give an ADDITIONAL stipend of $300 for their parent. You can even knock down the original stipend to $250. This way, all players in the juniors and seniors division will be getting $500 for a top 4 performance, and for the masters that are still minors and need the extra stipend for their parents, they can get that too. For the Masters that are above 18 and top 4 a regional championship, they still get $250, which is more than 3rd/4th has gotten in many many years. This would please everyone I imagine. I didn't hear complaints from VGC players about minors getting extra money.

 

[Diaz]

You know what I think would have been a good idea? Do what the VGC did from 2010-2012. For the 2nd-4th participants in each age group give a $300 stipend, and for those under the age of 18 give an ADDITIONAL stipend of $300 for their parent. You can even knock down the original stipend to $250. This way, all players in the juniors and seniors division will be getting $500 for a top 4 performance, and for the masters that are still minors and need the extra stipend for their parents, they can get that too. For the Masters that are above 18 and top 4 a regional championship, they still get $250, which is more than 3rd/4th has gotten in many many years. This would please everyone I imagine. I didn't hear complaints from VGC players about minors getting extra money.

I like this, but would suggest $200 instead of $250. That would mean that Juniors/Seniors would be getting $400 and Masters would get $200. Anyone under 18 already gets a second plane ride with their travel awards for a guardian. I think Masters would have been a lot more happy with that solution.

 

[Jaeger]

You know what I think would have been a good idea? Do what the VGC did from 2010-2012. For the 2nd-4th participants in each age group give a $300 stipend, and for those under the age of 18 give an ADDITIONAL stipend of $300 for their parent. You can even knock down the original stipend to $250. This way, all players in the juniors and seniors division will be getting $500 for a top 4 performance, and for the masters that are still minors and need the extra stipend for their parents, they can get that too. For the Masters that are above 18 and top 4 a regional championship, they still get $250, which is more than 3rd/4th has gotten in many many years. This would please everyone I imagine. I didn't hear complaints from VGC players about minors getting extra money.

I think with P!P the issue is finding the money in the budget...while people could get behind your plan it simply costs P!P more money.

 

[losjackal]

Implicitly putting words into my mouth is something that I would expect from Mystery Thing (after all, he just did), but it's not something I would expect from you, losjackal.

Geez, let's not start to make this personal. You could have omitted this sentence and still made your point. I was just building off the most recent posts.

I like this, but would suggest $200 instead of $250. That would mean that Juniors/Seniors would be getting $400 and Masters would get $200. Anyone under 18 already gets a second plane ride with their travel awards for a guardian. I think Masters would have been a lot more happy with that solution.

This is a neat breakdown, and yes inevitably some Masters would have been happier but not eliminated the discontent completely. The "not fair" and "not equal" posts probably still would have appeared. Maybe TPCi preferred a strong change of 500/500/0 rather than 400/400/200 for some future reason.

 

[psychup2034]

Biased is not the same as well-informed. I'd actually go the other way...given a dearth of information, people are limited to form their opinions on their limited knowledge, their experience, and their inherent self-interests. Bias has a greater tendency to appear there. If you and I are pleasantly debating here in the middle, it's easy to see how one side sees the other as myopic. The flaw in that scenario is that the TPCi side has more information than the player side. So by comparison they are the ones than can be the least myopic, actually. The OP brass are paid to consider what is best for the company and what is best for the players and balance it all out. The players? Not so much...they only are expected to consider what is best for them, and choose whether to play or not. (Certainly the best players in the community rise above this minimal expectation and truly contribute. We all know who they are.)

Let me respond to this first, as it ties into the main point that I (and some others) were trying to make on the last page. Players might be limited in the amount of information that they have. (Let's assume for now that the lack of communication from TPCi does not contribute to the players' lack of information.) Given the amount of information the players do have, however, the players generally evaluate the decisions from TPCi/OP on a case-by-case basis. If TPCi/OP makes a good decision in the eyes of the general community, then the general community will respond positively. If TPCi/OP makes a bad decision in the eyes of the general community, then the general community will respond negatively (as they have toward the new prizes structure for Regionals). This was the point I was making by listing out the decisions that TPCi has made in the recent past and describing how the community in general[/i] felt about each decision.

This is not the case for some posters here (generally those officially affiliated with TPCi or the 'gym). Regardless of individual opinions, some people just are not allowed to question TPCi's decisions on the forums. That makes their opinions inherently biased, regardless of how much information they have. They could have all the information in the world, but if they're not allowed to publicly take a certain opinion, the opinions they do give cannot be credibly presented as unbiased. For example, I know of a certain PTO who thinks the decision for Regionals prize support is "a little crazy." Without naming him/her, I can tell you that he/she would never publicly post anything criticizing TPCi on this forum. However, in private, he/she has his/her own opinions.

I'm not claiming that the players don't speak from their own interests. I'm claiming that players have the ability to either praise or criticize a decision that TPCi/OP makes without getting into trouble. In other words, the "players" as a collective group generally can be credibly subjective. The fact that players in general do praise TPCi when they do something applaudable and do criticize TPCi when they do something questionable is evidence of this.

The fact that certain people are not permitted to question TPCi's decisions publicly detracts from their ability to discuss an issue with plausibly credible subjectivity. This is what people were talking about earlier in this thread. It is disheartening (and frustrating) to debate another party that is contractually compelled to refrain from taking the critical side of each and every debate about TPCi/OP's decisions.

---------- Post added 09/18/2012 at 02:57 PM ----------

Geez, let's not start to make this personal. You could have omitted this sentence and still made your point. I was just building off the most recent posts.

Sure. I was a little peeved that you based a good portion of your argument against my point based on someone else putting words into my mouth.

---------- Post added 09/18/2012 at 03:24 PM ----------

Players still may not like it, and they may not even comprehend why it makes any kind of sense, because there is more being considered in these decisions than what players are privy to.

People form their decisions based on the information that they have. Players have stopped assuming that TPCi always makes the best decisions because of the blunders described here.

Either explain to us the hidden brilliance of the seemingly questionable plans, or don't try to stop people from responding negatively to the seemingly questionable plans. In the case of the inequitable split of prizes for Regionals, the players have generally responded negatively (evidenced by the last few pages of this therad) even after Dave came and explained the reasoning to us. That's because players in general found the reasoning behind the decision to be suspect. Why not $400/$400/$200 instead of $500/$500/$0? People (including myself) asked that question pages ago, yet there has been no response to it except the very vague "maybe there's a reason they didn't do $400/$400/$200" type of response.

Case in point: all those people raging in July about 3 Regionals? They didn't have the big picture about all the changes being made...

I'm stoked about 3 Regionals. It's great for me, as I have an excuse to go visit my friends on the West Coast in the Winter.

However, there is a majority view that is TPCi is the party that "didn't have the big picture about all the changes being made" because they didn't place enough emphasis on how it would impact the parents of Junior/Senior/young Master Pokemon players who would be given extra strain because of the increasing length the season. Additionally, those Masters players who are adults are affected as well, as they either have to go to school (and are thus on a tight budget) or are working (and thus have a tight amount of time/vacation days).

TPCi was focused on expanding the game and make sure that there was a Premier Event every month of the year, which was a worthy goal. I think there are some players (that I believe are in the majority) who believe that TPCi might have underestimated the effect of the extended season on some parents (and players too)!

At least in the case of 3 Regionals, I'm in the minority that supports the decision (because I have the resources/time to go, and it's great for me). But at the same time, I understand why people would be upset by it.

---------- Post added 09/18/2012 at 03:29 PM ----------

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

Sure. For the sake of argument, let's assume that your post isn't guilty of ignoratio elenchi.

The first quote of this post that you were responding to is this: "it is incredibly frustrating to see certain people defending TPCi no matter what they do."

It would be unfair for me to pull other people into this discussion (although I know of a couple who I have in mind), so I'll just have to use you as an example. Could you provide a couple examples (2 would suffice) where you even slightly questioned a decision from TPCi?

You could also respond to Diaz as well.

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.)

 

[PokePop]

Biased is not the same as well-informed. I'd actually go the other way...given a dearth of information, people are limited to form their opinions on their limited knowledge, their experience, and their inherent self-interests. Bias has a greater tendency to appear there. If you and I are pleasantly debating here in the middle, it's easy to see how one side sees the other as myopic. The flaw in that scenario is that the TPCi side has more information than the player side. So by comparison they are the ones than can be the least myopic, actually. The OP brass are paid to consider what is best for the company and what is best for the players and balance it all out. The players? Not so much...they only are expected to consider what is best for them, and choose whether to play or not. (Certainly the best players in the community rise above this minimal expectation and truly contribute. We all know who they are.)

Can I marry you?

 

[ShadowCard]

Let me put this in simple terms/words. PTOs may understand WHY TPCi has done what they have done, but that doesnt mean we all AGREE with every move. See the difference???

If they do not agree but do not wish to convey that, their silence would be appreciated instead of defending the decision. Perhaps post around the topic and address various factual problems instead if they would rather participate in the thread.

Whenever an organizer chooses to defend--even if they do not support--a decision that favors the division that does not overwhelmingly carry their event's attendance, it would be interesting to find their most recent event and see the attendance division breakdown.

 

[HenryP]

New idea: Scrap PTCGO entirely and use the extra money to up the prize support in the real card game. Problem solved.

 

[ShadowCard]

If money, in the form of scholarships, was not attracting junior/senior attendance, why would one think that money in a different form, stipends, would work?

This is a neat breakdown, and yes inevitably some Masters would have been happier but not eliminated the discontent completely. The "not fair" and "not equal" posts probably still would have appeared. Maybe TPCi preferred a strong change of 500/500/0 rather than 400/400/200 for some future reason.

A few years ago, there was a "compromise."
TPCi announced, without warning, that foreign language cards would no longer be allowed in tournament events. Although there was much speculation, there was never an official reason given. This was generally viewed as bad by the community.
Then, a 10% rule was decided for that year which would then be followed by a total ban at the end of the tournament year. Reasoning was the majority of foreign language cards were of the current/upcoming modified format. At the end of the tournament year, those cards would rotate out, making them unplayable anyway, and players then already had advanced notice to not buy any foreign language card for any subsequent sets. This compromise was generally applauded by the community

So, even though Masters would get less, the acknowledgement that Masters too spend money to get to the events could make it less of a bitter reaction.

 

[losjackal]

Interesting example. However, let me ask you...extending the analogy, would a similar compromise be generally applauded by the community to just go to 500/500/0 the following year instead?

I don't know TPCi's full intentions, so maybe this is a just-rip-the-bandage-off type thing.

P.S. Do we know that scholarships weren't attractive? If so, I'm unaware of the evidence. Short of that, all we know is TPCi took them away last year for a calculated reason.

 

[Jaeger]

Shadow: Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the forigen language cards had to do with the fact it was harder for new players, people were using them for stalling, and in a different sales market Nintendo wasn't making money from them. All very valid IMO

losjackal: no your right that sort of compromise most likely wouldn't be...and the situations are fully different mainly from the point of view that the foreign language cards weren't directly costing P!P money out of pocket.

I still don't see whats unfair about $300 across the board.

 

[psychup2034]

PTOs have their own PRIVATE, NDA protected area where "we" get to interact closer with OP brass. We give opinions on all sorts of topics there. Our opinions are usually considered, but the bottom line is Pete, Dave, Dan, Mike, Angela, et al have a JOB to do and BOSSES and BUDGETS and LEGAL to answer to too! You cannot make everyone happy on all decisions.....someone is going to be upset on some.

I completely buy your premise, but I fail to see how anyone would be upset by doing the $300/$300/$300 split as people have suggested, given that it was $0 last year. (Who would possibly be upset by it?) While it's true that "you cannot make everyone happy on all decisions," this particular decision is one whether they could have made everyone happy, but instead chose a route that upset a lot of players.

Sure, I get that the idea was to grow the Juniors/Seniors divisions, but something as simple as better advertisement of organized play on booster packs/boxes and video game boxes could be done. That would have a much greater effect on growing the division than just giving disproportionate prize support. Someone has to get into the game first before you're going to be able to compete for prizes. It seems like trying to use prize support to grow the younger divisions without taking other (more impactful) steps simultaneously would be futile.

I applaud the effort by TPCi/OP to grow the Juniors/Seniors divisions. I just think that they're going about it in a ridiculous (and inequitable) way.

 

[ShadowCard]

Interesting example. However, let me ask you...extending the analogy, would a similar compromise be generally applauded by the community to just go to 500/500/0 the following year instead?

I was pointing to that compromise is generally applauding by the community but I'll explore this question too.

The compromise worked (in my opinion) because it was not the ban that made most of the cards that people had unplayable. That was done by the Modified format. The complaint was that players already spent money on the JPN cards but that was for sets already released. Player bought a JPN Uxie? No problem because it and all those other cards became unplayable when Modified rotated. The ban effectively applied to future cards so players knew to not buy any more foreign language cards in the future.

The comparison may be more workable if the money goes to 0/0/0 the next year.

P.S. Do we know that scholarships weren't attractive? If so, I'm unaware of the evidence. Short of that, all we know is TPCi took them away last year for a calculated reason.

Good question. I do not remember. :redface:
The one post I did find basically said it was for a calculated reason.

Shadow: Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the forigen language cards had to do with the fact it was harder for new players, people were using them for stalling, and in a different sales market Nintendo wasn't making money from them. All very valid IMO

Valid but was speculation. I was under the impression that the OP brass did not confirm/deny the reason for the ban. In the thread about it, the lack of input by OP brass lead to a thinking that the ban came at the request by someone higher than them for non-OP reasons. I do not remember it being confirmed/denied like Professor Dav did in this thread. Everytime someone says that is the reason, I ask for a reference and no one offers one.

 

[vegitalian]

Geez, let's not start to make this personal. You could have omitted this sentence and still made your point. I was just building off the most recent posts.



This is a neat breakdown, and yes inevitably some Masters would have been happier but not eliminated the discontent completely. The "not fair" and "not equal" posts probably still would have appeared. Maybe TPCi preferred a strong change of 500/500/0 rather than 400/400/200 for some future reason.

I actually don't see the 400/400/200 as age discrimination, if the extra 200 is parental allowance. The fact that kids need to be accompanied by parents does make the trip itself more expensive. There are still some discrepancies that would need to be worked out with underage masters, but it would be a lot closer to fair in my mind (and I'm sure with many other players).

As some people in this thread pointed out, if you don't see the idea itself as discrimination, at least understand that it's a poor customer retention strategy.

There are a lot of people in this thread that represent either Pokegym or Pokemon (as a judge or professor) that are rubbing off as extremely unprofessional. Nice job, guys.