The points were never irrelevant. It really came down to perception being more important than maybe I thought it was through these offline conversations.
Reading back through your other thread, I didn’t see whole ton of solid points that seemed to come across as unanimously accepted and approved. I read a ton of people agreeing with some of the points, and a ton of people disagreeing with some of the points.
Your post in the other thread pretty much summed up exactly where we stand:
“I think that its not fair to have the elite who perform well at big tourneys be guaranteed SCS spots, but i also think its unfair for people to make their way in through “bulk play”. tough call.”
The reality is that the “bulk players” are making the cut anyway (whether they count all 60 events they played in, or only their best 20). The reality is that the elite players who perform well at big tourneys who are making the cut, are making the cut either way. That’s just the facts in every model I’ve run ad nauseum.
The decision came down to giving those people that FEEL they don’t have a chance to make the cut under the uncapped system, a chance to FEEL like they now have a better chance not having to chase down the players that get to count all 60+ of their events played.
I think you fail to realize that I deal with IFPA complaining pretty much 24/7 . . . so it’s mostly white noise at this point. My comment about making a decision as to which group I want to piss off was said in jest.
If it’s all white noise, why not just make declarations without offering the “comment period”? Asking for opinions but refusing to modify your original plan is a bad faith action.
I evaluate the comment period . . . my point was that there is complaining NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS.
For example, your complaint here about why I bother with all the complaining
The opinions on Tilt Forums, the State Rep board, private email, and even cough, Pinside, cough, absolutely made an impact on the direction we’ve chosen to go with the SCS. IMO the original plan has been modified, or else you wouldn’t have seen any changes since the April 1st announcement.
There is a sense from some people if I don’t follow through with exactly what they want, that I’m “not listening”. Through all the snark I may provide (and my apologies but that’s just the way I roll), I listen to ALL OF IT. I think about ALL OF IT . . . CONSTANTLY.
The snark surely doesn’t help. If you want people to trust you with holding funds for a year, might I suggest a more professional attitude? Also, still waiting for that write-up for the $1 rule
We appreciate your comments. The IFPA takes the upcoming endorsement fee process very seriously. We have built in as much transparency as possible into our payment system to show every “in” and “out” that will be processed.
Once we have finalized all the necessary pages needed to launch the 2018 SCS season, we will make that announcement publicly. That announcement will include everything related to the $1 fee, how it is processed, how the balances are stored, how the balances are relieved through the tournament submission process, and eventually a way for TD’s to log in to see their entire history of “in” and “out” activity of their funds.
On behalf of the IFPA, let me sincerely apologize that it is taking us so long to produce that write-up for you. We know you must be excited about this upcoming season, but we want to be sure everything is working properly before going public with that information.
Please stay tuned to www.ifpapinball.com where we will make that announcement.
All this reminds me of golf’s Ryder Cup selection process. The top 8 get in automatically. The last 4 spots are filled by the captain, and are not always the players ranked 9th-12th. The point system they use is one of many they could have, and has changed over the years, but you never see the golfers griping about “if the point system were different, I would have gotten in.” Every example I’ve seen here has the “odd person out” under varying scenarios being somewhere near the bottom to begin with, e.g. 12th, 15th, etc. Simple fact, people: player well enough to be top 10 or top 8 and which system is used won’t matter. Same thing applies re the annual IFPA tournament, really - - if the WPPR system were a bit different, as it has been in the past, some people near the 62nd-place cutoff would flip from “in” to “out” and vice versa. There’s no perfect system, and Josh has gone above and beyond the call to work with hundreds of people to get a pretty good setup in place for the SCS next year. Give peace, er, SCS, a chance and let’s see how it goes.
Is there even one player in that list that lives south of I70?
I still think you should allow communities that straddle state lines to choose which state their tournaments count towards. Maybe the 20 event limit would encourage more tourneys in Cincy proper, but probably not.
Who within “the community” makes that choice? Is it the TD that registers the event, or a player by player choice?
What objective measures decide whether a community is considered straddling a state line versus not?
I’m interested in seeing if the 20 event limit does encourage these kind of communities to increase their participation based on the perception of a better chance of qualifying. The fact you are on Tilt Forums isn’t fair, because you know you don’t actually stand a better chance. Do me a favor and don’t share that information with anyone else in your community
I run two tournaments a month in northside Larry. That’s 24 times a year you and Pat and the rest of the cincy crew can compete and take spots from C Bus and CLE.
If all you guys start showing up, our events will be worth the same as theirs if not more. Come play dammit! Haha
Choice would be made by TD and declared with the rest of the tournament info.
Community can be a defined metro area
…but these are pretty large, could simply say if TD lives within X miles of neighboring state, he/she can declare for that state, where X is something small enough to not add significant inconvenience to people traveling from that state (15-20 miles?)
I don’t think the 20 limit would light much of a fire here, but who knows…
Yea Erik we need to get down there more often. Those would get us closer, but can y’all fit enough people in there for the bigger TGP? Even if we got more competitive in Ohio, I still would want the ability to choose which state if I were running a standalone tourney. Heck, could do one for OH and another for KY.
Yep. If we push our regular turnout to 32-36 instead of 16-20, our events would push out 15-20 points to the winner every time. There’s nine games at the bar so we could technically have 36 players and have events where no one waits. And formats that don’t take much longer than what they take now. About 4 hours.
Anyway that would be cool to get to declare what state an event counted for. Would help expand the possible KY locations from like 3 (one includes my house haha).
You’re in for 2017 Emily ;). I’ve already been going through players. Moving forward I will be doing some things to ct players more wpprtunitues. Nepl and and 24 hour haven’t and won’t dominate/skew our scs. I’m happy with all changes. Money may be best in CT for New England maybe but I think our skill of locals is fierce enough to scare off people looking for an easy buck!
So I really do feel bad . . . one of our art vendors at Raw Thrills graciously donated the toppers (for both Canada and the Heads-Up Championship which is getting a trophy upgrade).
They accidentally ran it in the wrong size, and because they were free I haven’t had the heart to tell them that they f*cked up.
Figured I’ll go through this stock, and then on the re-run I’ll make a note of “Oh by the way, please make sure to use this size”.
Or . . . Canada’s are smaller as payback for all the s*it Jeff Teolis has given me, so blame him
