My goal in posing the question to begin with was certainly not to troll, and apologies to you Raymond if it came off that way. I’m trying to legitimately look for ways to improve the quality of events for attendees of events that I run. The impetus of my question is the event that I am running this upcoming Saturday. It involves using some machines on the show floor that we won’t have keys for and won’t have the ability to make adjustments to ahead of the event.
While it is not a Circuit-level serious event, I am still attempting to strive to get the event to 100% TGP while still being conscience of reasonable time limits. If we have an event of 48 people and one group happens to be crushing a specific machine, I as a tournament director want to know what recourse I have to ensure that the tournament still rolls on in a reasonable way while still earning the TGP the format dictates.
I like the Pinburgh rule because it gives us major flexibility to “keep the trains running”.
I agree with this, as I just had this happen last weekend in an event that I attended where we all waited around for an extraordinarily long game of Dirty Harry. It is my motivation for asking. I am trying to ensure a fun and entertaining event that isn’t unreasonably held up.
I debated whether I even asked the question or not, and just ran my event as-is with the hopes that no-one “tattles” on the event. I thought it would be best to get clarification because what I don’t want is a post-event “penalty” taking away 66% of the value of the event because I felt the need to use it during a single round of qualifying. My understanding is that the Buffalo Summer Open Classics Division ended up losing value as a result of inclusion of a specific game (https://www.ifpapinball.com/tournaments/view.php?t=23346). My assumption is that it was intended to be 100% but then had value taken away after the fact; I don’t want this happening to this event.
I also debated whether I asked privately for clarification, but I think the introduction of this rule is a potentially valuable tool for tournament directors on the assumption that it could be used with nuance; and the answer from the IFPA is that it can’t.
Given that this is the answer, I’ll echo the frustration with that as a policy position. We currently have no recourse to stop an in-progress runaway game for the sake of the flow of the tournament without sacrificing literally 66% of the value of the event, especially when I (or anyone playing by the rules I presume) would be willing to provide evidence of when it gets used. You have Pinburgh on the very extreme of that that loses 66% value because of a decision made that affected 4 of the 840 players for 1 out of ~8,400 games played in qualifying.