Please Opt Out of Rankings if You Earned a Rating Invite and Can't Attend Worlds!

[NoPoke]

No I'm trying to explain how the presence of passdowns is exactly the same as how a tournament handles drops. But if you are going to restrict me from using facts I'm going to struggle.

Prior to the cut players can drop and their place in the cut passes down.
Prior to the invites being sent out by POP players can go NOIR and their invite to worlds passes down.
After standings are posted you can't drop out of the cut.
Ater POP sends out the invites changing to NOIR or opting back in has no effect.

.. but then this is just facts too. So doesn't count???

 

[TheDarkTwins]

I am not concerned about the rest of the world. I do not know their situation, so I have asked, multiple times, to not draw any comparisons between THIS thread/discussion, and Europe's practices. I am ignorant of visas and the problems intl players have when traveling, so I do not want to discuss it.

What we can discuss is the US. The argument has not changed for me. I am just trying to re-direct the argument back to the US and ONLY about the US.

So, as far the US, I do not think a bubble boy should receive an invite just because he is the bubble boy. It has nothing to do with SotG- if the person did not earn his or her invite, why should he or she be going to worlds?

I liked my top cut analogy, does no one want to comment on it besides DFB- who just doesn't understand what an analogy is?

Why are we NOT okay with allowing someone NOT in the cut to advance if there is a dropper in the top cut, but many of us ARE okay with someone who did NOT earn an invite receiving one because people ahead of them "dropped" (went into NOIR)?

If you do it for outside the US your going to have to do it inside the US. There will be too many players who are going to cry foul on that one. I also think that if you told a Junior that they could of played in worlds but because of a rule change they don't get an invite that passes down. You have to remember while Masters are the biggest division it is still aimed at the lower age groups more. To do this would have more negative effects on the two lower division that positive on the Masters division.

passdowns from nats/worlds winners?

Carefully. okay.

I won't speak for ryan.

I have a problem with people getting invites through a passdown system when they didn't earn the invite through normal means. It's not that the person doesn't deserve to play in Worlds. There are so many players who I feel deserve to play in Worlds. My problem is that, when a luck-based system like passing down invites (it is luck-based because you don't know how many invites will pass down each year, so one year you may not get it, one year you might), it ignores how similarly skilled the players right below the bubble are to those inside the bubble. If equal skill is suggest, then equal prizes should be rewarded.

But if someone opts out then they DID earn them. They may have earned them for a reason that maybe not a clear cut but they still earned them. Does that mean that last year half of the T16 who got invites at Nationals didn't deserve them?

I honestly have no idea what you just said. I don't understand what you're getting at?

The ratings are up???????? We know the top X people who will, as it stands, get invites to worlds????


Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

The person doesn't get to choose, in that situation. They have two invites, and one is passed down. The scenario we are discussing is one person giving up his invite via going NOIR to let the person below them get a rating invite. Do I agree with a practice we have no choice in? That's like asking if I agree with a top 32 cut. It is what it is? It's understood that X will get an invite via nationals, and the top 25 rated (after that) will receive a rating invite. not top 27, top 25. This is how it was observed to take place, so for whatever reason, although it is not stated directly, it is not the top 25 rated players, it is the top 25 rated players not including players who already have invites.



I don't think the 27th rated player, not including those with invites already, should be allowed, when it's supposed to be the top 25.

So what your saying is that you also feel that at Worlds (128 players) that the last 3 players in the T32 who were 4-3 were less deserving to make cut than those who were 5-2 or better? You know as well as I do that nothing is going to be perfect no matter how much we try. If we could this would not only be a moot point, but so would a lot of other things in the World.

Drew

 

[ryanvergel]

No I'm trying to explain how the presence of passdowns is exactly the same as how a tournament handles drops. But if you are going to restrict me from using facts I'm going to struggle.

Prior to the cut players can drop and their place in the cut passes down.
Prior to the invites being sent out by POP players can go NOIR and their invite to worlds passes down.
After standings are posted you can't drop out of the cut.
Ater POP sends out the invites changing to NOIR or opting back in has no effect.

.. but then this is just facts too. So doesn't count???

But the cut has already been posted. We know who is going to be in the top cut. See the difference?

Prior to the cut players can drop and their place in the cut passes down.
Prior to the invites being sent out by POP players can go NOIR and their invite to worlds passes down.
After standings are posted you can't drop out of the cut.
Ater POP sends out the invites changing to NOIR or opting back in has no effect.

The standings have been posted... because we know how everyone's ratings look like. We know what the cut is. POP knows the top people right now, but are leaving a gap in sending the e-mails. Specifically for this purpose, I am sure. But I do not agree with it. We know who the top rated 25 players are (without an invite already), and if we allow people out of what we know to enter that number by advocating going NOIR then we are advocating a practice that allows people we know did not EARN an invite to receive one anyhow. I am fundamentally against this.

Is my stance clear? Is the analogy I posted clear in how it tries to explain my stance? I described a scenario that is against the rules, but tried to relate our sentiment as to WHY it is against the rules to being how we should feel about the situation at hand. We make it against the rules to go into the top cut after it is announced (similar to posting the updated ratings) because we know it isn't fair for someone who didn't earn their way in, to go in- right? Why else would we not allow it? This situation is similar in that we know who should be in 'the top cut' (the top X invited via ratings), but we are condoning a behavior to allow others into 'the top cut' who did not earn their place there. This seems against Spirit of the Game.

You don't need to try to get sarcastic. I just had no idea what you were talking about or why you were posting what you posted.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

So what your saying is that you also feel that at Worlds (128 players) that the last 3 players in the T32 who were 4-3 were less deserving to make cut than those who were 5-2 or better? You know as well as I do that nothing is going to be perfect no matter how much we try. If we could this would not only be a moot point, but so would a lot of other things in the World.

That doesn't even make sense. I can never understand what you're trying to say or argue or discuss, Drew. Could you be more clear? You don't make any sense, man.

If you do it for outside the US your going to have to do it inside the US. There will be too many players who are going to cry foul on that one. I also think that if you told a Junior that they could of played in worlds but because of a rule change they don't get an invite that passes down. You have to remember while Masters are the biggest division it is still aimed at the lower age groups more. To do this would have more negative effects on the two lower division that positive on the Masters division.

If I do what outside the US? I don't do anything outside the US. Crying foul on "what one"? "I also think that if you told a Junior that they could of played in worlds but because of a rule change they don't get an invite that passes down." That doesn't make sense? I have to remember it's aimed at lower divisions? What does that mean? To do what would have a negative effect? How would it have a negative effect?

 

[NoPoke]

Ryan I posted a long way up that I did figure out why you are equating the posting of standings with the locking in of invites.

I posted that I hadn't thought of it that way.

I posted why I hadn't thought of it that way.

1) the invites POP sends out do not seem to match the standings list that players like myself assembled. A technicality but an intriguing one.

2) You don't need the final ratings to know who is going to get an invite. You do need the final standing to know who you are going to play in the cut. It is a subtle difference but a crucial one for why I don't accept that the posting of ratings is analogous to posting standings after the swiss.

3) Players do have a good idea if they are going to get an invite based upon how well they did in the swiss and their rating prior to the start of nationals. If this were not the case then there would be no drops to lock in an invite. You are using the point at which information is avaialble to decide a rating invite as corresponding to being locked into the cut, I get that , though not at first. Yet for most players that information is available before they even start the tournament.

It looks like the point at which standings are posted corresponds to the day after a tournament is uploaded and the ratings have changed but closer thought highlights many discrepancies with that association. hence my assertion that passdowns are handled in the same way that a tournament handles entry into the cut.

A 6-1 player at the end of swiss knows that they have made a T16 cut yet they can still drop. They can still opt out of the cut.

 

[Gabriel]

this thread is pointless. if someone is going to opt out, they're going to opt out. if they're not they're not.

and i find all the posts about the "lack of sotg" found in the forums stupid.

in the end it doesnt really matter they're just posts on the POKEMON gym.

 

[TheDarkTwins]

But the cut has already been posted. We know who is going to be in the top cut. See the difference?

Prior to the cut players can drop and their place in the cut passes down.
Prior to the invites being sent out by POP players can go NOIR and their invite to worlds passes down.
After standings are posted you can't drop out of the cut.
Ater POP sends out the invites changing to NOIR or opting back in has no effect.

The standings have been posted... because we know how everyone's ratings look like. We know what the cut is. POP knows the top people right now, but are leaving a gap in sending the e-mails. Specifically for this purpose, I am sure. But I do not agree with it. We know who the top rated 25 players are (without an invite already), and if we allow people out of what we know to enter that number by advocating going NOIR then we are advocating a practice that allows people we know did not EARN an invite to receive one anyhow. I am fundamentally against this.

Is my stance clear? Is the analogy I posted clear in how it tries to explain my stance? I described a scenario that is against the rules, but tried to relate our sentiment as to WHY it is against the rules to being how we should feel about the situation at hand. We make it against the rules to go into the top cut after it is announced (similar to posting the updated ratings) because we know it isn't fair for someone who didn't earn their way in, to go in- right? Why else would we not allow it? This situation is similar in that we know who should be in 'the top cut' (the top X invited via ratings), but we are condoning a behavior to allow others into 'the top cut' who did not earn their place there. This seems against Spirit of the Game.

You don't need to try to get sarcastic. I just had no idea what you were talking about or why you were posting what you posted.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:



That doesn't even make sense. I can never understand what you're trying to say or argue or discuss, Drew. Could you be more clear? You don't make any sense, man.



If I do what outside the US? I don't do anything outside the US. Crying foul on "what one"? "I also think that if you told a Junior that they could of played in worlds but because of a rule change they don't get an invite that passes down." That doesn't make sense? I have to remember it's aimed at lower divisions? What does that mean? To do what would have a negative effect? How would it have a negative effect?

I think it is VERY clear what I was saying, but I will explain it in more detail as I can see how it could of been confusing.

Last year worlds had only 128 players, you say that you feel that everyone should be held to the same standards or that it should be fair. How is it fair at Worlds to have only 3 of the 4-3's make the cut, wouldn't it be better to have a T29 eliminating the T29 just wondering.

You can't say that you don't care what Europe does. If you think that invites shouldn't pass down then you have to feel universally about that, not just in the US. If you feel it is wrong, than you should feel it is wrong anytime it happens. In Europe, the ratings go pretty far down because of the Opt Out. You can't be okay with it in Europe but not in the US, that is a bit of an issue in my eyes. Plus the fact is that as I stated what you do in the US you will be pressured to to in Europe or the US players will be quite upset.

As far as the Juniors, they are what helps the game grow. The majority of the players are people who started in the lower age groups at one time. I am one of the few players who have never played a tournament in another age group, you maybe the same, I am not sure. However, Seniors and Juniors are far less understanding on the whole because they are younger (not saying there aren't those who would understand, just most wouldn't) and if there goal is to play in Worlds, they will be obviously crushed to not make it. I mean look at US Nationals, the player who got 2nd was seriously upset about not winning. Now imagine if say this year they allow pass downs and the Junior or Senior sees this and understands why. Now what happens in the following year because all of us Masters (who are just a small piece in the whole voice) complained they change it and that player who would of thought he was in now has to be explained why he can't play. I will tell you this that wouldn't be a person involved trying to explain that one.

It boils down to this. Is eliminating pass downs by opting out good for the game. I can't really see a significant positive. I can only see negatives. The positives just outweigh the negatives (if there are any). You also have to remember that while you think this way, you are only a small part of the group that sees it that way. There are so many people that would be affected by this that taking the Masters opinion for this would be IMO a bad choice and overall bad for the game. I think that if they were to change it, they would have to see how would it affect everyone, and the fact is I think that they will see that it wouldn't have a positive impact on the game.

You also want to make more players play the game for sales and the more rule enforcing you are the more likely you are going to lose players, which is not the idea of something that needs players to survive. I think while you may feel that way to eliminate the option is a bad idea at this time.

Drew

 

[Box of Fail]

I think that if you earn an invite that is the equivalent of the right to refuse the next in line an invite if you don't go. Right?

 

[The Gorn]

I think that if you earn an invite that is the equivalent of the right to refuse the next in line an invite if you don't go. Right?

LOL, that's the way I looked at it.

If the next guy in line is someone I don't like, I can hose him.

Is that SOTG? It doesn't feel like SOTG, but maybe it's just me. LOL

 

[Yoshi-]

IMO there is no real difference between people above and under the line, the difference is so small.
So it would bef air for most people who are close to get an invite, but this is impossible, so by dropping out you can at least give one person the chance. Sure the next in line now is in the same position, so one could argue why the first in line gets to slip in and the second one doesnt. And there is no real answer to this except luck, but its better to let one person slip in then none at all.
You cant please everyone and someone will be the first one to not get in, but at least someone else gets to slip in. Better one than none :/

 

[Jayson]

I'd like to see high-rated players, who have performed well throughout this season, get opt-out passdown invites, rather than see random So.Cal players make it through the giant crapshoot that the 2009 LCQ will probably end up being.

To me, an ~1850 rating is more qualifying than an X-0 or X-1 at the Grinder.

I'll be rooting for a lot of people in the Grinder so on a personal level I'd kinda like to see a good amount of Grinder invites. But I think overall the best-qualified players would come from the top 30-40 in rankings, and we should get as many players from that as possible. Ranking invites shouldn't be converted into LCQ invites due to a rating invitee being unable to attend.

 

[ryanvergel]

I'd like to see high-rated players, who have performed well throughout this season, get opt-out passdown invites, rather than see random So.Cal players make it through the giant crapshoot that the 2009 LCQ will probably end up being.

To me, an ~1850 rating is more qualifying than an X-0 or X-1 at the Grinder.

I'll be rooting for a lot of people in the Grinder so on a personal level I'd kinda like to see a good amount of Grinder invites. But I think overall the best-qualified players would come from the top 30-40 in rankings, and we should get as many players from that as possible. Ranking invites shouldn't be converted into LCQ invites due to a rating invitee being unable to attend.

But the entire season/and nationals was a crapshoot. Nationals and the grinder will be quite similar.

This season is so very random. I saw a notable decline in successive tournament wins from last year to this year, and many more wins within the first 2 turns. I think someone who can X-0 the Grinder would be very ready for Worlds the next day. In fact, I have seen that Grinder entrants actually tend to do very well at Worlds.

 

[The Gorn]

This season is so very random. I saw a notable decline in successive tournament wins from last year to this year, and many more wins within the first 2 turns. I think someone who can X-0 the Grinder would be very ready for Worlds the next day. In fact, I have seen that Grinder entrants actually tend to do very well at Worlds.

Ryan, I always find your posts well thought-out and clearly written.

Given the fact that no sets are rotating, do you anticipate next season to be as "so very random" as this season?

 

[Yoshi-]

No, it wont *drools @spiritomb* ^_^

 

[Jayson]

But the entire season/and nationals was a crapshoot. Nationals and the grinder will be quite similar.

Each individual event was a crapshoot, but someone's performance over an entire season definitely is not. If someone has an 1840+ rating, they've been consistently going X-0, X-1 or X-2 at the events they've attended, and earning points.

This season is so very random. I saw a notable decline in successive tournament wins from last year to this year, and many more wins within the first 2 turns. I think someone who can X-0 the Grinder would be very ready for Worlds the next day. In fact, I have seen that Grinder entrants actually tend to do very well at Worlds.

Decline in successive tournament wins? A lot of the big names that do well every year won or top cut multiple tournaments this season. Look at the top 50, plenty of those people won multiple tournaments. And I wish people would stop bringing up the T1 or T2 win, that (sea)horse has been beaten to death. If the format is full of T1 and T2 decks, don't play a deck that is susceptible to that sort of thing. If you run ten 50-60hp basics, don't be surprised if some of your games end in a T1 Sableye or T1 Kingdra. High-HP basic decks have been the safest play ever since Stormfront and especially since Platinum (BTS) came out.