Who's 'Dave'?
AFAIK, the only 'Dave' posting to the thread is Dave Schwimmer, but you seem to be addressing Mike Cook...
'mom
AFAIK, the only 'Dave' posting to the thread is Dave Schwimmer, but you seem to be addressing Mike Cook...
'mom
What Constitues a long time POP Ban...
- Thread starter Kanna Hyouko
- Start date
- Status
Sure, to participate in League and get points, prizes, etc.SD PokéMom said:
PokeMom, some deactivations don't prevent players from attending leagues. In some cases, banned members should be encouraged to continue playing. We had a local person who got banned, but he continued to attend and play at leagues. No reason why he should not have -- his deactivation wasn't that harsh.
I can cite one good example -- Pablo Mesa. He didn't quit Pokemon. He showed up at Worlds. He wanted to come back -- and now he is back. That's the kind of repentance you want.
Depending on the reason for the deactivation, GLs should encourage such players to continue playing at non-OP activities.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
Fixed it. My bad.SD PokéMom said:Who's 'Dave'?
AFAIK, the only 'Dave' posting to the thread is Dave Schwimmer, but you seem to be addressing Mike Cook...
'mom
Last edited:
SteveP said:
If you're suspended for any reason, you are not allowed to participate in any POP-sponsored event. You can watch, but you can't play. Now, nothing's to stop a suspended player from showing up at a league and playing, but he shouldn't be earning any prizes, and his opponent's shouldn't be receiving league points for playing against him. Now, there are some exceptions (such as side events at Worlds), but those exceptions are made by POP, not by an individual organizer.
Shadow Zangoose
New Member
This, is one of the better things that i've seen come out of this thread. I think if players got exiled from league as well, they'd just leave and never come back due to you evil, EVIL (did i mention evil?) dictators up at OP. :lol:M_Liesik said:
~Shadow
Edit : Just noticed that it said that "HE" shouldn't be earning anything. Mr. Liesik, you bad, bad sexist man. What if it was a lady? :tongue:
Understood.M_Liesik said:
But IMO, casual, non-POP play should be encouraged, in some cases, even if that suspended person shows up at POP-sponsored leagues.
But of course, I'm not talking about thieves, molesters, etc. Rather, I'm talking about those who've repented from minor suspensions and are striving to come back.
Rainbowgym
Active Member
M_Liesik said:
Interesting, so if any organizer does a tournament, pays the prices from the money they ask to participate a suspended person is allowed to play.
That's what you are saying, because in that case POP does not sponsor a single penny.
I would think that a local tournament held by a TO is considered to be POP-sponsored if it's sanctioned, even though POP actually didn't provide prizes. A while ago, sanctioned tournament winners got POP "Winner" pins, so those were definately POP-sponsored. Pins or no pins, I'd say that any sanctioned tournament is POP-sponsored.Rainbowgym said:
Now, a non-sanctioned tournament (edit: and non-POP sponsored), ANY player can participate, suspended or not.
Last edited:
Rainbowgym
Active Member
I know all about non-sanctioned tournaments, that's all what is left for us. It's sad but true.
I also forgot sometimes sanctioned tournaments get a few POP boosters to give away overhere. (at least if you are in the grace of the LD)
I also forgot sometimes sanctioned tournaments get a few POP boosters to give away overhere. (at least if you are in the grace of the LD)
meganium45
Active Member
Banned players cannot participate in league in my area.
Sorry, I do not let them in the play area, and my locations support me on this.
They can come to the store, but not play in the "league" area.
If that is wrong, then so be it.
I am not going to NOT sanction tourneys just so banned players can play.
Who are we catering to, those that follow the rules and stay on the good side of POP, or those that have found themselves on the outside of the fences?
Very mixed message letting banned players in events or catering events so banned players can play.
My opinion.
vince
Sorry, I do not let them in the play area, and my locations support me on this.
They can come to the store, but not play in the "league" area.
If that is wrong, then so be it.
I am not going to NOT sanction tourneys just so banned players can play.
Who are we catering to, those that follow the rules and stay on the good side of POP, or those that have found themselves on the outside of the fences?
Very mixed message letting banned players in events or catering events so banned players can play.
My opinion.
vince
Vince, we're not arguing about "official" participation. It's a given that suspended players can't participate in POP-sponsored events.
I also agree that it's dump to hold an unsanctioned tournament just so suspended players can participate.
But, I've got to disagree with a blanket exclusion policy from leagues for suspended players. IMO, exclusion from casual, non-sponsored league activities should be conditional, based on the reason for suspension. Thus, the need for PTOs and GLs to know the reasons for suspension. I want some suspended players to "return to the fold." JMO.
BTW Vince, wasn't it YOU who was curious, maybe even a little bit concerned, about MartinM's suspension (you started the topic)? A classic example of someone you want to encourage to return, not discourage by permantly expelling them until their sentance is up. IMO, there needs to be a "parole" period.
I also agree that it's dump to hold an unsanctioned tournament just so suspended players can participate.
But, I've got to disagree with a blanket exclusion policy from leagues for suspended players. IMO, exclusion from casual, non-sponsored league activities should be conditional, based on the reason for suspension. Thus, the need for PTOs and GLs to know the reasons for suspension. I want some suspended players to "return to the fold." JMO.
BTW Vince, wasn't it YOU who was curious, maybe even a little bit concerned, about MartinM's suspension (you started the topic)? A classic example of someone you want to encourage to return, not discourage by permantly expelling them until their sentance is up. IMO, there needs to be a "parole" period.
Last edited:
meganium45
Active Member
It was me who was curious on Martin's banned.
What are these non-sponsored league activities you speak of? All league is sponsored.
There is a lot of Pokemon that is played outside of league, and other PUI sponsored events. Ask Jimmy or Ness how many leagues they were a member of...I will bet NONE.
We do want some of these players back in the fold, once their ban is completed. Smart, connected players will still find avenues to play and keep up with the game.
They are not banned from the gym, apprentice, or from their friends and teams, are they?
As for probationary periods...that starts when they get back, not before.
Vince
What are these non-sponsored league activities you speak of? All league is sponsored.
There is a lot of Pokemon that is played outside of league, and other PUI sponsored events. Ask Jimmy or Ness how many leagues they were a member of...I will bet NONE.
We do want some of these players back in the fold, once their ban is completed. Smart, connected players will still find avenues to play and keep up with the game.
They are not banned from the gym, apprentice, or from their friends and teams, are they?
As for probationary periods...that starts when they get back, not before.
Vince
Rainbowgym
Active Member
SteveP said:
Depends on the situation I would say.
What if 4 potential National Champions are suspended and an Organizer prefers to have good competition?
Is it still dump from that point of view???
I know this is a very rare exception but it's reality overhere.
CHARIZARD MASTERTRAINER
New Member
I feel I need to clarify more on my part and I think I will....I'll try to be more like Plato and Feinberg and come up with some cases that are possible which would support what I had stated earlier. And forgive me if I'm playing devil's advocate or seen as supporting the bad side and not thinking that bans are necessary, because in fact I totally support them. I see where you are coming from Vince, but in some cases, people that are banned are not aware of what got them banned....
Let's say we have a kid (CK)....Now he is banned....no one knows what he did to get himself banned, except for the respected parties. After some thought, CK only knows of 2 instances in which could have led to the ban. Now if this is the case:
1)Is CK banned for the 1 instance or the 2nd....or for both?
2)How could he know what got him banned if there is more than one possibility for his banning? He doesn't want to discuss both cases because POP not might know about one of them and this could make his situation worse.
That is why he would feel compelled to ask what justified the ban. I know its a weird situation, but Feinberg does bring up weird cases in his justification of the offense principle, and if he can, why can't I?
It's weird position I'm trying to present here, but I would think it deserves some response and I'm not gonna stop defending it at least till I get something notable. Plus I feel like arguing, since I just got my paper approved and it kinda relates to this and Pokemon in general, which I'm happy about..:clap:
CMT
Rainbowgym
Active Member
Yes I hope they have friends who are willing to organize UNsanctioned tournaments for them to keep up their skills.
AT least we had the goodwill of one organizer overhere who cared more about the level of play than for the "free goodies".
AT least we had the goodwill of one organizer overhere who cared more about the level of play than for the "free goodies".
Naw Vince, we hold League at our store, but some players choose not to participate, yet they play. It's up to the store owner, not the GL as to whether such players are allowed to be there. Mind you, our store owner is also our PTO and he charges $5/month to play whether you're a league member or not. But, he'd probably ban any suspended players from his store if the violation was serious.
Just a difference of opinion here.
BTW Vince, didn't you see Pablo Mesa at Worlds? POP didn't stop him from being there. But, by your strict policy (no suspended players allowed to be in the league area), Pablo could not have been there. :tongue:
Just a difference of opinion here.
BTW Vince, didn't you see Pablo Mesa at Worlds? POP didn't stop him from being there. But, by your strict policy (no suspended players allowed to be in the league area), Pablo could not have been there. :tongue:
Shellshock929
<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
I agree with SteveP. There are some people who come to league and never for tournaments. I don't mind banned players in my leagues, they just can't play in my tournaments (when sanctioned).
CHARIZARD MASTERTRAINER
New Member
Yea, I kinda agree with you guys... banned players are free to come in and play with league and non-league members with the permission of the store owner. If thats okay, leaguers who want to play with them can do so, I won't award any points to them, but sometimes the leaguers would be okay with that (it would not be such a big deal). I think someone has his pants pulled up too high...
I think the fact that players are banned from POP official activities is more than enough, we don't have to be mean to them and not allow them to play some games with anyone who would care to face them. They may not get any points or packs from me, but I wouldn't mind playing a game with them if i was available to do so...(leaguers always come first)
CMT
I think the fact that players are banned from POP official activities is more than enough, we don't have to be mean to them and not allow them to play some games with anyone who would care to face them. They may not get any points or packs from me, but I wouldn't mind playing a game with them if i was available to do so...(leaguers always come first)
CMT
- Status