Putting a player on a timeout in unlimited qualifying.


Those negative actions include posting about Pinburgh dinner break restaurant choices when one shouldn’t be :wink:


I’m not trying to create more work for you guys. I promise. Just slinging ideas about how to get this stuff under control.


Why not just let event organizers deny access to those they don’t want around?

The even organizers today don’t have to bow to ifpa at all except a few minor criteria to be eligible. I think it would alter things significantly for ifpa to get more involved in how an organizer runs their own events.


Its easy… it’s the organizers prerogative - if their decision negatively impacts other players, they should voice it with the organizers or speak with their feet.

Who wants more “regulation” across events that come in every size and form? I could see something like the pro circuit doing it… or a chain of connected events… but just across all ifpa logged events? Asking for even more drama


I’m not sure how that’s relevant unless we are supposed to petition the ifpa to issue a worldwide ban on someone who isn’t a competitive pinball player and doesn’t have an ifpa number? I’d be embarrassed to bring that up with those guys.

And, it’s kind of apples and oranges since we are talking about a spectator - an outlier in this discussion for sure.

When it comes to players, I don’t think a single yellow card was issued at our event and I didn’t personally see anything that would have even come close to calling for one. For the most part I find competitive players to be a pretty well behaved bunch. I’m just not seeing all the terrible behavior that some seem to think requires urgent action and sweeping reform to be brought “under control.”


I stand corrected on the Kaneda comment, as I thought he had participated. In that sense it is apples and oranges. In that situation, obviously it wouldn’t do any good to reach out to them. The point was more or less if you saw that as a problem, or just a one off incident and it was all in good fun and booze.

Obviously enough people do see these problem players and their actions to warrant two separate threads on here, multiple discussions on Facebook, and so on. I received more complaints at Pinburgh because of player behavior than I ever imagined I would.

But these things don’t happen in Pinball.

I was trying to generate discussion and ideas for those that were interested in coming up with a solution. I wasn’t claiming to have all or even the best answers, but thanks for making it clear that my ideas aren’t good for pinball. We can agree to disagree and have a beer or two about it at the next event. First ones on me. :+1:


I had thought about that. I’m not sure if each circuit event requires pre-registration, but for those that don’t I would worry about the situation where someone might travel a long distance, only to be met with “turn around and go home, you’re not welcome here”.

I’m not really sure. The more I think on it, I’m not sure there’s really a good answer. I’d say letting individual TD’s handle their own business is the way to go. There’s just too many different perspectives, personalities, and opinions surrounding the whole thing that we’re never going to come to a consensus on how to handle these issues on a larger scale that will work for everyone.


I would hope that the list of players who fall into that category would be extremely short. In that case, it’s a simple matter of sending an email saying “Don’t bother coming this year.”

As far as I am concerned, I would not hesitate to ban Kaneda at all future NYCPC events. If actions don’t have consequences, anyone can do anything they like at any time, repeatedly.


For me, I just make sure the organizers are aware. At the event and afterwards. I always like the surveys some tournaments send out, as I use that to make sure it’s on record that something was going on that I want to make sure they are aware of.

Outside of that, I think it’s just up to the organizers to do with that information what they will.


Sure! Seems like that’s the best we can do at this point.


“Tournament director reserves the right to disqualify or eject players for disruptive behavior or machine abuse.”

No further explanation needed. No external entities, e.g. IFPA, needed. TD’s prerogative. Warn if TD feels it’s necessary, eject immediately for extreme behavior, e.g. kicking a game door. Location concerns about language? Make an announcement ahead of time with repercussions.

Writing a 2 page legal contract or definition of what constitutes bad behavior, penalty levels, warnings, yellow/red card definitions, etc. isn’t needed. That’s just overkill. TD’s prerogative, period.

TD abuses this prerogative, players will eventually stop attending. TD bans a player from future events, that TD needs to communicate with the player and inform them of the ban. It’s really pretty simple.


I’m looking at you, NFL.

If there’s a agreed upon generic standard of conduct with the ability to escalate punishment on extreme cases, that’s all we need.

Not a document that explains more than i can about pinball machine rules when it’s okay and not okay to use your helmet.


Streisand effect?


My experience as a moderator for an on-line game supports the idea that you should give discretion to the people in charge. Basic guidelines should be provided but if there is no discretion given you’ll have users constantly pushing the boundaries of the written rules and arguing they didn’t technically violate them.




You guys should build in and code sensors and electrodes that will bite people back for rough housing. People love novel mechanisms!


I tried to pitch Painball a la Painstation, but no one’s buying into it. :confused:


I just question the validity of the complaints though.

I recently witnessed what I’m going to call an unfortunate outrage of people towards one player because they tilted a game that their friend owned. Multiple of those friends got upset, made comments about it to the player and then went and told the owner of that game whom came and addressed it with the player during their match. Ironically enough though what the initial player did was less aggressive than what the upset friends and the owner of that specific game had already previously done themselves in earlier matches. I witnessed all of these.

Everyone in this real life situation are very stand up people and some people that I really enjoy playing with but it goes to point out the inconsistencies in witness statements due to personal preferences. This is why witness statements in accidents and fights aren’t real helpful for police officers. Helps them identify people but making judgment on the aggressor or whom was at fault it plays little factor at all.

To me, rule of thumb has to be that a TD or official witnesses the situation. No hear say. If you get 15 complaints then that means you need to watch that person not that you should now give the yellow card or time out. If something someone is doing is that egregious then it should be obvious to a TD, scorekeeper or official.

I know if that happened to me (getting a card due to hear say) I’d be looking for Adam L and hiring him to represent me real quick :slight_smile:


So really, those people that were ganging up on the player were practicing collusion in an attempt to freeze out that player since what the player did was less than what the cabal did. Interesting.

If the player didn’t tilt and didn’t do an illegal move like a bangback then that’s the owner’s fault for not setting the tilt properly.


He tilted and it was a pretty aggressive tilt at that (frustration) but not a rage tilt (ball had no chance to be saved). It was a pretty strong move and actually completely out of character for that person.

But, the owner of that game literally moved a separate game so hard, in the match I was playing with him, that the game came off it’s rubber footings and one leg went into the air and even triggered a Multiball (moved a locked ball enough to where the game thought it triggered another hit). One of the friends, in a previous game I play against them in, rage titled after getting a house ball and slammed the lock bar down.

I’m being some what vague as I’m trying not to give enough info so others figure out the players in question as that’s not the point as they are all honestly what I would call friends to one another and nobody (I felt) was trying to do intentional harm.

The original player in question diffidently broached the line but I use this as an example of how peoples interpretation can sway judgement. Neither the owner of that game or the friend went to the owners of the games they got aggressive we and apologized. Shoot, I’ve also done my fair share of tempure tantrums that I’m not proud of so I’m also not trying to throw stones in my not so glass house. Just trying to provide a background to support why I don’t feel hear say should be part of the decision.