IFPA POWER 100 Invitational


#61

“World’s Okayest Pinball Player” t-shirt as prize.


#62

Could make the shirt say “Sure plays a mean pinball”


#63

This is just ridiculous.

I have, for a long time, been in open debate with Josh about what I see as failings in the current ranking system and the way points are apportioned etc. Never has the discussion gone down the route of this isn’t an open competition, and thus shouldn’t be eligible for WPPR points.
It clearly is an open competition. The players who are in the POWER 100 are invited to attend. EVERYBODY has the opportunity to get in the POWER 100 by being good enough and beating their peers, AND by getting enough points to be ranked in the top 250.
It may be harder for certain people to achieve this, based either on their skill, or ability to compete in enough major competitions but it IS OPEN.

The buy-in value is irrelevant. Whether it’s $100 or $1,000,000. It could be argued that it is unfair to those people who don’t have $100 to risk as an entry fee, but the same argument could be made for a $3 entry fee.

There is no doubt that this is an OPEN competition.

The fact that it’s held in Josh’s basement also should have no bearing on any thoughts you have. Someone will have “home advantage” in the vast majority of competitions. They also have all the hassle of organising the comp, dealing with breakdowns or machines, a venue full of strangers (even if they are known to each other doesn’t necessarily mean you’d invite them into your house), and everything else that goes with running any size comp.

What if there was a venue that allowed everybody of age, race, sex, etc. to enter. However, one person was barred from that venue (due to beating up the owner the previous week, or whatever) and been issued with a court restraining order. That venue now isn’t open to “everyone”. Should the whole event be “unsanctioned”?
What about someone who can’t drive to an event which doesn’t have good public transport access, is that venue no longer open to all?
You need to be realistic about what’s “open”.
If a venue has a particular restriction - which is enforced at all times, not just for the pinball comp, it must still be classified as open.

PS: I do understand the argument about the higher ranked players more likely to remain near the top of the rankings due to the way points are allocated per competition based on the rankings of those present, but that applies to ALL comps, both open and “skill-qualified”. That has nothing whatsoever to do with this tournament.
The real question has to be: how did they become higher ranked players? By performing better in more comps and earning those points. Play better if you want to be up there.


#64

Wow, just wow. I feel like I’m on Pinside…


#65

Really? Because I haven’t seen the official rules for it, just how to pay your fee. When’s the write-up coming?


#66

People can not walk up and enter. It is a restrictive tournament. It is not OPEN.

The rules are very clear about this. They state " If certain players are prohibited from playing based on age, gender, skill or personal reasons, those results will not be counted." and that would fall under a personal reason therefore the tournament is not points eligible.

When rules get written down it is not up to the whim as to if they are followed or not unless there is a clear and communicated process for exceptions.

Again, I ask Josh if he is willing to answer why the rules are not followed as written.


#67

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands to post derogatory comments that aren’t grounded in fact or evidence. I highly recommend you go back and read responses that have already been provided to you. While you’re at it, do a bit of research on other Open competitions such as the US Open (both golf and tennis), etc. that are also OPEN events and neither allow someone to just walk up and enter the event.


#68

I believe that Josh has sufficiently answered this question, not just in this thread but in MANY threads in the past. I’d ask that you accept these answers, and move on.


#69

It’s a blatant slap in the face! XD


#70

How dare you deprive me the right to answer the same questions again! It’s my birthday, and if I want to go back through old threads copying and pasting answers, I should have the right to do that without being moderated!!! :slight_smile:

@WWJ nailed it for me, and we don’t typically agree on much so that must mean something. Thanks Wayne!

My only goal today is to make sure Mr. Hartman is satisfied with the details of our $1 fee announcement. That’s my birthday wish, and I’m going to make that true in 3 . . .2 . . .1 . . .


#71

You’ve had since April 1st. Considering the amount of other changes and updates you’ve pushed out, I’m surprised you haven’t done any work on your flagship announcement.


#72

My above comments about continually harassing Josh for questions that he has already answered or expressed his intent to answer apply in this situation as well.


#73

Dear Mr. Hartman,

While it looks like we haven’t done much work on the endorsement fee since the April 1st announcement, we’ve been hard at work behind the scenes making sure everything comes together.

The entire payment structure changed form the initial launch plans. Originally the money was going to be taken in at the “net” amount - post fees, but this caused a bunch of issues on the back end. I preferred to not bore the world with those details as we worked through them.

Finalizing the details on the capped/uncapped and Super States rule changes was something that was talked about on our State Reps forum and on Tilt Forums. Again, it was nothing we wanted to post publicly to our website as things weren’t actually finalized.

The re-branding of “Nationals” into the “NACS” was also something that wasn’t finalized (and in fact still isn’t - there is a logo in the works that really should have gone out with the official announcement).

On behalf of the IFPA I would like to again apologize if it seems we neglected working on the endorsement fee campaign, but rest assured there have been an insane number of hours working through the final details, and implementing those details on our side.

We appreciate your high level of interest in these changes for the 2018-19 season. Without the interest from players like yourself it wouldn’t have been a campaign worth implementing.

Sincerely,
Josh Sharpe
IFPA President


#74

I’m sorry (not really) but this is quite possibly the dumbest and most disrespectful post I’ve ever read on this forum (including my own posts, which is really saying something). If you think it’s some sort of “mutual admiration society” cabal that the top tier players are in, scheming to grab the $$$ from the casual players, you are out of your god damn mind. I’ve showed over and over how the prize pool being distributed to 16 (now 24) players at the state level actually massively increases the amount of money available to players who quite literally never receive payouts at most Seattle events but somehow this idea that it’s all a cash grab pervades. Thinking Josh is trying to feed anyone’s ego with this stuff is bordering on absolutely delusional. I can assure you as a former top 20 player (which I still would be if I unsuppressed) that the amount of our brain space that this issue occupies is basically zero. No one is feeding anyone’s ego, no one cares about this stuff except players who aren’t affected in any way because they never win money at tournaments as-is. If tournaments adopt the “take the fee out of the prizes” model, the only players that lose out are the ones like me who literally lived for a couple months off of tournament winnings playing 3-4 events a week.

It’s fine to not like the policy (still kind of silly though for a player who would actually benefit from it), but to act like it’s some circlejerk at the top level is just not in touch with reality in any way.


#75

C’mon man, stop repeating this flat out lie. It was there clear as day on the website according to the Wayback Machine.


#76

If your hall pass is revoked, I’m willing to backup host if I can choose the finals game(s). Prospector for all the money!


#77

I’m bookmarking this post . . . just make sure you answer my call when it comes :slight_smile:


#78

Remember the Peter Watt debate? Talk to me about Jordan Tredaway :astonished:


#79

But I think Jordan is actually good? (I’M TOTALLY KIDDING) . . .there’s no proof that Jordan is actually good either . . .(TOTALLY KIDDING ABOUT THAT AS WELL) :slight_smile:

Hoping to see both of those guys hit up a major at some point, or venture to IFPA HQ for some high stakes action. We do have an Outback Steakhouse 10 minutes from my house, and dinner is on me if it helps to seal the deal to get those guys over.


#80

From following results throughout the years I always supposed that Richard Rhodes was the best Aus player, but clearly…

https://www.ifpapinball.com/players/compare.php?p1=34917&p2=12045