You must have a REALLY important job, like driving an ambulance, that if you're late ONCE you're getting fired.
If it was a recurring thing with this group MAYBE, but we already know these players are timely.
One Side of the AZ States issue(now with both sides post 117)
- Thread starter BLiZzArD
- Start date
- Status
You must have a REALLY important job, like driving an ambulance, that if you're late ONCE you're getting fired.
If it was a recurring thing with this group MAYBE, but we already know these players are timely.
upon reading the PTO's response, it clearly shows that she shouldn't be blamed. obviously, there was a lack of communication. The PTO announced that only those with extinuating circumstances would be allowed in with a round 1 loss. The reason given for tardiness was red lights. It seems to me there was a lack of communication on both parts. The players failed to explain the insulin, and the hj failed to explain the necessity of having a good excuse. These 2 things combined, caused this occurrence. the PTO wasn't trying to "crucify" these players to set an example.
siliconmatrix
New Member
Perhaps we are missing the point here. There is no gray area here, rules were set forth, rules were not followed and there are consequences for not following the rules. Having gray areas with this sort of thing totally leads away from being impartial and fair. The most fair way to go about it is just to set a bar and judge it as a go or no-go.
Agent Kadabra
New Member
That's no excuse. Just because anyone has been good about timeliness in the past does not give them carte' blanch over how the running of a tournament should be conducted.
vegitalian
New Member
I have read both sides of the story and I see valid points in each.
If the situation was not explained correctly, it is not her fault for enforcing the rules. Had the extra additions not impacted the timing of the event, I personally would have let the players participate, but then again it was not my call. I do understand the frustration involved with people being late (there are very few valid excuses) - I usually aim for 15-30 minutes BEFORE registration even opens to ensure I find the correct location and can get my decklist together early before people decide to start scouting.
The right call was made (obviously) to go back for the insulin. This should have been communicated to the TO - and if it was, an exception should have been made.
My main reason for coming into the conversation is to prove that a first round loss is BAD. While it is easy to 'Ride the Wave' as I call it, you are always better off winning than losing.
If you are 0-1, you need to make 5-1 (assuming 6 rounds) to make top cut. This means that you need to face:
0-1
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
If you are 1-0, you need to make 5-1 (or possibly even 4-2) to make top cut. You need to face (worst case scenario):
1-0
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
When comparing the two, we see that the only difference is that the late player has to face an 0-1 whereas the early winner has to face a 1-0. The late player HAS to win the 2nd round to make cut, but the early winner can lose the 2nd match to be at the same place as the first player.
If pairings are made by S.O.S., these two players would be essentially facing the same caliber of players by the third round (players that didn't lose to an undefeated player). So while it is easy to recover from a first round loss, it is much easier to win your first game and continue. I realize that there are other factors to consider in pairings and percentages, but the first few rounds anything can happen (if two good players face off R1, one will be 0-1), and the S.O.S. evens out in the middle rounds.
If the situation was not explained correctly, it is not her fault for enforcing the rules. Had the extra additions not impacted the timing of the event, I personally would have let the players participate, but then again it was not my call. I do understand the frustration involved with people being late (there are very few valid excuses) - I usually aim for 15-30 minutes BEFORE registration even opens to ensure I find the correct location and can get my decklist together early before people decide to start scouting.
The right call was made (obviously) to go back for the insulin. This should have been communicated to the TO - and if it was, an exception should have been made.
My main reason for coming into the conversation is to prove that a first round loss is BAD. While it is easy to 'Ride the Wave' as I call it, you are always better off winning than losing.
If you are 0-1, you need to make 5-1 (assuming 6 rounds) to make top cut. This means that you need to face:
0-1
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
If you are 1-0, you need to make 5-1 (or possibly even 4-2) to make top cut. You need to face (worst case scenario):
1-0
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
When comparing the two, we see that the only difference is that the late player has to face an 0-1 whereas the early winner has to face a 1-0. The late player HAS to win the 2nd round to make cut, but the early winner can lose the 2nd match to be at the same place as the first player.
If pairings are made by S.O.S., these two players would be essentially facing the same caliber of players by the third round (players that didn't lose to an undefeated player). So while it is easy to recover from a first round loss, it is much easier to win your first game and continue. I realize that there are other factors to consider in pairings and percentages, but the first few rounds anything can happen (if two good players face off R1, one will be 0-1), and the S.O.S. evens out in the middle rounds.
I'm just pointing out the flaw in his/her analogy which makes it irrelevant to the situation at hand.
The Captain
New Member
So from what i understand the PTO said before hand that every one HAD to be on time, or a dq. Rules are rules, weather or not you think its fair doesn't really matter.(as i know all too well) The fact is that for whatever reason you broke the rules. It's her responsibility to enforce her own rules, i think she did the right thing. It was within her powers. And you have no place arguing with her over it.
Now should she have done it, idk probably not, most would let it go, but that's not the point. So sorry but i have to side with the PTO, all rules should be enforced equally.
Now should she have done it, idk probably not, most would let it go, but that's not the point. So sorry but i have to side with the PTO, all rules should be enforced equally.
Agent Kadabra
New Member
...and what, really, was wrong with the analogy? The point was clear that when you have a time sensitive matter, not meeting with the expected deadline brings it's consequence. Whether it's work, meeting or in this case a tournament, they are all deadlines with a time constraint and I see no flaw in this viewpoint.
Well, this has been going for a day and a half now, and all the interested parties have laid out their viewpoints.
At this point, it's just going around in circles.
Based on that, I'm going to lock the topic now.
If there are new developments that the interested parties wish to discuss, they are free to start up a new topic.
At this point, it's just going around in circles.
Based on that, I'm going to lock the topic now.
If there are new developments that the interested parties wish to discuss, they are free to start up a new topic.
- Status