V:EKN Continental Championships 2004

The V:EKN is coordinating four invitational V:TES continental championship tournaments in 2004, in Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. To play in a championship tournament, players will first have to qualify by finishing in the top 25% (rounded up) of the non-qualified players at one of the qualifying tournaments. Qualifying in any qualifier enables a player to play in any and all of the four continental championships. The finalists from the 2003 championships are pre-qualified for the 2004 championships. Once a player qualifies, he or she is free to play in other qualifiers (the qualifiers are all open tournaments). But such previously-qualified players do not count when determining the new qualifiers at that tournament. For example, in a tournament with 25 non-qualified players and 6 previously- qualified players, the top 7 non-qualified players (25/4 = 6.25 => 7) will qualify, regardless of the finishing positions of the 6 previously-qualified players. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/Championship.html -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

>The V:EKN is coordinating four invitational V:TES continental championship >tournaments in 2004, in Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. It just occurred to me that a potential marketing strategy for getting more players in Africa would be doing an Ebony Kingdom expansion (with, of course, some sort of marketing campaign). This assumes that trying to expand in Africa makes sense and assumes that it wouldn't backfire because people found EK offensive for some reason. Then, this gets me to wondering whether any RPGs do well anywhere in Asia, never hear anything about it.

This is WAY too harsh for Australia. It is great that by qualifying once you can go to any of the 4 continental championships, but this is absolutely beyond the scope of many players. It's not like Magic with it's professional players, who can afford to go internationally, but I can't say I know more then 2 people who can afford to such a thing. The reason why this is so harsh for Australia is that the main way people get to the Nats is by carpool. We don't have our Nats tied in with a Con, we go to the Nats just for Jyhad. And so, the only affordable way many people can afford to go to the Nats is by splitting costs. Now, not everyone who qualifies can or wants to go to the Nats, and seeing as at least half the cities of Australia that have held Qualifiers had less then 12 people going for it, 3 people do NOT make a cross country carpool. Of the 7 cities, only one city was within 10 hours of the next. We are EXTREMELY spread out. Now, this may not seem bad to Americans or Europeans (I'm hoping to get some support from the South Americans!) But the only people who play VTES are in these capitol cities. To better explain, take the South East Region of the USA. In size, less then 1/5 of the continental USA. But there are more then 7 cities where people travel from to play at the VTES Qualifiers, most with less then a 6 hour drive or a $100 plane ticket. Here, the cities are the Qualifiers. Some people have traveled up to 10 hours by car to go a qualifier because there were not enough slots. But in the states, if you don't make your own regional qualifier, it's not that far for many to go to another. What I'm basically trying to say is, by making it harder to qualify(normally, the 50% qualify in a qualifer with less then 20, top 10 for qualifiers over 20), you are making it harder for those who do qualify to make it to the Nats. Less people equals less interest. Less interest means less people, which totally means less cards being sold. Please, for this small continent (smallest in the world! And only 20 million people in a nation about the size of the USA) can you please make some exceptions to have more people qualify per qualifier. If anything, to keep the game going, and its players happy. Thanks, Jamie The Seppo LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<401032C8...@white-wolf.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <32a7a630.04012...@posting.google.com>, moon...@hotkey.net.au (Jamie The Seppo) mumbled something about: >This is WAY too harsh for Australia. In what way? The remainder of this message will assume you mean "it's too hard to qualify, waaahh." >It is great that by qualifying once you can go to any of the 4 >continental championships, but this is absolutely beyond the scope of >many players. It's not like Magic with it's professional players, who >can afford to go internationally, but I can't say I know more then 2 >people who can afford to such a thing. How is any of this relevant to the alleged harshness? >The reason why this is so harsh for Australia is that the main way >people get to the Nats is by carpool. We don't have our Nats tied in How you get to the tournament site cannot possibly be related to the difficulty of qualifying. >with a Con, we go to the Nats just for Jyhad. And so, the only >affordable way many people can afford to go to the Nats is by How affordable it is for you to go to the continental championship has no bearing on the difficulty of qualifying. >splitting costs. Now, not everyone who qualifies can or wants to go >to the Nats, and seeing as at least half the cities of Australia that They can give up their qualifier spot to someone who IS going, by informing the judge prior to the start of the tournament. If they finish in a place where they would have qualified, they will be passed over. >have held Qualifiers had less then 12 people going for it, 3 people do >NOT make a cross country carpool. Of the 7 cities, only one city was >within 10 hours of the next. We are EXTREMELY spread out. How is it anyone else's fault that only a few cities in Australia choose to hold qualifiers? >Some people have traveled up to 10 hours by car to go a qualifier >because there were not enough slots. But in the states, if you don't >make your own regional qualifier, it's not that far for many to go to >another. Absolutely untrue. It takes me more than a 10-hour drive to get to Atlantic City, Boston, or Washington, DC -- the sites of the nearest three other qualifiers. There are no other qualifiers closer to me currently scheduled. Prior to conducting more whining, I suggest researching your subject. >What I'm basically trying to say is, by making it harder to >qualify(normally, the 50% qualify in a qualifer with less then 20, top >10 for qualifiers over 20), you are making it harder for those who do >qualify to make it to the Nats. Less people equals less interest. This is a horrible fallacy. The difficulty of qualifying has absolutely no significance in whether or not the players who are qualified are able to attend the National Championships. Either they CAN go, or they CAN'T go. And then, either they qualify, or they don't. The two are entirely separate. >Please, for this small continent (smallest in the world! And only 20 >million people in a nation about the size of the USA) can you please >make some exceptions to have more people qualify per qualifier. If >anything, to keep the game going, and its players happy. Please, can we have ONLY the winner of each Australian qualifier be qualified for the four continental championships? Then Jamie will REALLY have something to whine about. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040124165303...@mb-m18.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Lots of Anime rpgs in Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Lots of card games based on them, and some of them even filter through to US TV - e.g., Dragon Ball Z. Patrick Columbus, OH

> In what way? >> The remainder of this message will assume you mean "it's too hard to > qualify, waaahh." No, that's not my concern. It's that being too hard to qualify will make it harder for people who do qualify to be able to travel to the Nats. > How is any of this relevant to the alleged harshness? It's revelant in that although it seems great that anyone who qualifies can go to any continents Nats, yet, it's improbable that a significant amount of people will be able to take up this offer. > How you get to the tournament site cannot possibly be related to the > difficulty of qualifying. The less number of people that qualify means several things 1) Not all who qualify make it to the Nats, so we're cutting down the number of people who attend the Nats. 2) Harder to qualify means people aren't going to take the risk of traveling huge distances for the last chance qualifier 3) It makes it harder to form a carpool/caravan to the Nats, if there is not that many people going to the Nats because they qualified. > How affordable it is for you to go to the continental championship has > no bearing on the difficulty of qualifying. It does when we're trying to promote the game around here. > They can give up their qualifier spot to someone who IS going, by > informing the judge prior to the start of the tournament. If they > finish in a place where they would have qualified, they will be passed > over. I don't believe this is allowed. If so, where is this provision? If this is true, I've known alot of people who would have gone to Nats if they qualified but didn't know about this arrangement. Also if this is true, then this whole arguement is moot. > How is it anyone else's fault that only a few cities in Australia choose > to hold qualifiers? There ARE only a few cities in Australia! There's only one city that doesn't hold a Qualifier, and that's Darwin. That's like saying, why can't Anchorage, Alaska have a qualifier, cause it's that bloody remote and small. > Absolutely untrue. I didn't say EVERYONE, I said many many. > It takes me more than a 10-hour drive to get to Atlantic City, Boston, > or Washington, DC -- the sites of the nearest three other qualifiers. > There are no other qualifiers closer to me currently scheduled. But if you live in Atlantic City, you are within a 10-hour drive to Washington, missing Atlanta and Boston by a few hours. Unlike Perth, who have to drive over 24 hours to make it to the nearest Qualifier besides their own. 24 hours on the one of most desolate 2 lane highways in the world, through the driest states on the driest continent. > Prior to conducting more whining, I suggest researching your subject. Prior to my almost complete lack of self-control outburst of insulting you so rudely when I don't even know you or the complete circumstances that you are in, I tried to research more exactly what I was saying is true. Unfortunately, the locations of most the tournaments are not up yet for me to research. However, I was able to find out that there are 8 regions to the USA. So that's 8 Regional Qualifiers and 1 Last Chance. That's 2 more qualifiers then Austalia. I also considered that Perth, the Most Isolated City In The World, (it's closer to the Capitol of Indonesia then it's own National Capitol of Canberra) has yet to have anyone who qualified show up to the Nats. Because anyone who did would have to travel completely across country for a VTES only tournament (and not the wonderous GenCon where the USA Nats are held). Round trip flight fees would be over US$700 (with a month in advance payment). And I KNOW it doesn't cost that much to travel from Miami to Seattle, which is about the equivalent. Oh yeah, and this total of 9 Qualifiers does NOT include Canada's or any other other qualifiers in the North American continent, as I hate to insult them by lumping them completely with the USA. > This is a horrible fallacy. > The difficulty of qualifying has absolutely no significance in whether > or not the players who are qualified are able to attend the National > Championships. > Either they CAN go, or they CAN'T go. And then, either they qualify, or > they don't. The two are entirely separate. But it divides the number of whose who actually do make it to a very small number over here in Australia. > Please, can we have ONLY the winner of each Australian qualifier be > qualified for the four continental championships? Then Jamie will > REALLY have something to whine about. > > -- Derek I'm not about to lower myself to your level and insult someone who I don't know. But first, this is a place for discussion. I didn't insult anyone, I didn't belittle the entire decision, and I'm fully open for suggestions or reasons on why this is being made so. I was not whining, I was giving an opinion. If you don't like my opinion, don't read it. If you have to insult me about this discussion, why don't you do it in my face when you show your arrogant shit-for-brains face up at the Australian Nats, IF you have the ability to qualify in your own country and can make it over here. Cause even if you did, then I could show you the disgruntled Aussies who are effected by this ruling, if they can make it to their own bloody Nats, as long as we can break the yoke of misunderstandings that not every continent, and not every country is the bloody same and should be accounted by the rules of just ONE country. And once again, we don't give a SHIT about qualifing for the other Championships, we just want to qualify for our OWN Championship. Jamie The Seppo

In message <32a7a630.04012...@posting.google.com>, moon...@hotkey.net.au (Jamie The Seppo) mumbled something about: >> In what way? >>> The remainder of this message will assume you mean "it's too hard >to >> qualify, waaahh." > >No, that's not my concern. It's that being too hard to qualify will >make it harder for people who do qualify to be able to travel to the >Nats. So let me get this straight -- if I lived in Australia and I qualified, and my friend did not, it would make it harder for me to travel to the National Championships? I still just don't get the connection. >> How is any of this relevant to the alleged harshness? > >It's revelant in that although it seems great that anyone who >qualifies can go to any continents Nats, yet, it's improbable that a >significant amount of people will be able to take up this offer. That has no relevance whatsoever to your previous objection. As you say below, we're only talking about Australia's nationals, not other countries'. >> How you get to the tournament site cannot possibly be related to the >> difficulty of qualifying. > >The less number of people that qualify means several things >1) Not all who qualify make it to the Nats, so we're cutting down the >number of people who attend the Nats. I still just don't get the connection. You mention carpooling, but damn, how hard can it BE? >2) Harder to qualify means people aren't going to take the risk of >traveling huge distances for the last chance qualifier Even though if you assume that #1 is true, almost everyone who travels to the Nationals will already be qualified, thereby making it EASIER to qualify at the Nationals themselves? >3) It makes it harder to form a carpool/caravan to the Nats, if there >is not that many people going to the Nats because they qualified. So you don't have airplanes in Australia? I don't get it. If you have 3 people going from the same city, what is so hard about all those 3 getting together and going? They ARE in the same city, after all. If someone wants to play but doesn't intend to attend the championships, he can give up his place to someone who DOES intend, so you should have no trouble with all X qualifiers intending to go to the Nationals. >> How affordable it is for you to go to the continental championship has >> no bearing on the difficulty of qualifying. > >It does when we're trying to promote the game around here. Well, shit, Jamie, travel costs money. So do games, and CCGs are NOT a cheap hobby. Respectfully suggest: Job. Or Better Job. Or Savings. Whichever. >> They can give up their qualifier spot to someone who IS going, by >> informing the judge prior to the start of the tournament. If they >> finish in a place where they would have qualified, they will be passed >> over. > >I don't believe this is allowed. If so, where is this provision? If It is allowed. It was allowed last Atlanta qualifier, at least -- a couple people made clear prior to the tournament that they were not intending to travel, and so should be left out of the qualifier considerations. It was mandated that they make this clear BEFORE the tournament began, however -- not afterwards, when they'd seen how they did! >> How is it anyone else's fault that only a few cities in Australia choose >> to hold qualifiers? > >There ARE only a few cities in Australia! There's only one city that >doesn't hold a Qualifier, and that's Darwin. That's like saying, why >can't Anchorage, Alaska have a qualifier, cause it's that bloody >remote and small. I don't see why Anchorage shouldn't be allowed to hold a qualifier. It can be the Igloo Region (IR). >> It takes me more than a 10-hour drive to get to Atlantic City, Boston, >> or Washington, DC -- the sites of the nearest three other qualifiers. >> There are no other qualifiers closer to me currently scheduled. > >But if you live in Atlantic City, you are within a 10-hour drive to >Washington, missing Atlanta and Boston by a few hours. But I don't live in Atlantic City, I live in Atlanta. What makes you think only Australians have it so rough? How about the poor LA crowd? We won't even TALK about the drive to Seattle or California. It's not even an option worth considering unless you begin to involve airplanes. >Unlike Perth, who have to drive over 24 hours to make it to the >nearest Qualifier besides their own. 24 hours on the one of most >desolate 2 lane highways in the world, through the driest states on >the driest continent. Have you ever seen Kansas? >However, I was able to find out that there are 8 regions to the USA. >So that's 8 Regional Qualifiers and 1 Last Chance. That's 2 more >qualifiers then Austalia. I also considered that Perth, the Most And we have how many more players than Australia exactly? >Isolated City In The World, (it's closer to the Capitol of Indonesia >then it's own National Capitol of Canberra) has yet to have anyone who >qualified show up to the Nats. Because anyone who did would have to So they aren't even relevant to the conversation, then. >travel completely across country for a VTES only tournament (and not >the wonderous GenCon where the USA Nats are held). Round trip flight >fees would be over US$700 (with a month in advance payment). And I >KNOW it doesn't cost that much to travel from Miami to Seattle, which >is about the equivalent. But that's perhaps because people travel from Miami to Seattle all the time, and therefore airfare is cheaper. Life is not always fair. Deal with it. >Oh yeah, and this total of 9 Qualifiers does NOT include Canada's or >any other other qualifiers in the North American continent, as I hate >to insult them by lumping them completely with the USA. Oh yeah, I can just nip off to Vancouver's qualifier. WhatEVER. >> This is a horrible fallacy. >> The difficulty of qualifying has absolutely no significance in whether >> or not the players who are qualified are able to attend the National >> Championships. >> Either they CAN go, or they CAN'T go. And then, either they qualify, or >> they don't. The two are entirely separate. > >But it divides the number of whose who actually do make it to a very >small number over here in Australia. What? What? Sorry? What? When I've just pointed out that "A" doesn't affect "B", you can't say that "A" divides "B" to a very small number. You need to show that "A" actually affects "B" in some manner first. >I'm not about to lower myself to your level and insult someone who I >don't know. But first, this is a place for discussion. I didn't You may note that I'm discussing it. >insult anyone, I didn't belittle the entire decision, and I'm fully But I insulted you. Twice, in fact. Care to go for three? >open for suggestions or reasons on why this is being made so. I was >not whining, I was giving an opinion. If you don't like my opinion, >don't read it. If you have to insult me about this discussion, why >don't you do it in my face when you show your arrogant shit-for-brains oooOOOeers, Internet threats. Bring it! As anyone who's met me can tell you, I'm perfectly willing to say to someone's face anything I say here. I have, in fact, met people I've argued with (at GenCon) and had a good laugh about it -- it seems that somehow, after meeting me, they understand a bit better where I come from and why I say the things I do. And vice versa, in fact. >face up at the Australian Nats, IF you have the ability to qualify in >your own country and can make it over here. Cause even if you did, I'd just like to point out that airfare from Perth to your Nationals is pocket change compared to airfare from the US to Australia, or vice versa. That said, I am so far behind on my world travel plans it's not even funny, and I have a number of people in Australia I'd love to meet. Careful what you wish for, it just might happen. >then I could show you the disgruntled Aussies who are effected by this >ruling, if they can make it to their own bloody Nats, as long as we >can break the yoke of misunderstandings that not every continent, and >not every country is the bloody same and should be accounted by the >rules of just ONE country. You have yet to demonstrate to me why Australia is so much different. >And once again, we don't give a SHIT about qualifing for the other >Championships, we just want to qualify for our OWN Championship. You may notice that not once did I ever bring up the possibility of your traveling to another country's Championships. I don't know why you keep mentioning it, except maybe to divert attention from the real issue. [ quoted text not captured ]

> So let me get this straight -- if I lived in Australia and I qualified, > and my friend did not, it would make it harder for me to travel to the > National Championships? > I still just don't get the connection. Damn boy, can't you read between the lines? Hell, can you at least read the lines? As I said, if I qualify, but my friend doesn't. He can't afford to take the trip on the bet that he might qualify. So he can't go. I can't go because I can't split the costs of the trip. > That has no relevance whatsoever to your previous objection. As you say > below, we're only talking about Australia's nationals, not other > countries'. Exactly. Australia's nationals. Not the US or Europe. We are different then you. We need different rules. > I still just don't get the connection. You mention carpooling, but > damn, how hard can it BE? I'm originally from Orlando Florida, and when I was there, I loved traveling by car for a LARP. I traveled up to the dick end of Virginia, an 18 hour trip just for a weekend long Camarilla LARP game, all by myself. Now, most of it was was on nice 4 lane highways, with rest stops and exits on average every 3 miles. That, and gas is still cheap in the USA compared to the rest of the world. Here, we're talking the same scenery, at best 2 radio stations per city (with a very limited range), the entire trip just 2 lanes, and having to dodge kangaroos. And I'm NOT kidding about the roos. Unlike deer to freeze in headlights, roos JUMP into the headlights. So going by yourself for long trips by yourself, is pretty much the most boring thing there is in the world. It IS THAT HARD. And it isn't that cheap. We're talking a $1 a liter. More then 4 liters to the gallon. $4 in Australian, works to about $3 USA. And you can't tell me that gas has hit (well, maybe in some parts for the 93oct stuff) has even hit $2. > Even though if you assume that #1 is true, almost everyone who travels > to the Nationals will already be qualified, thereby making it EASIER to > qualify at the Nationals themselves? Almost? 6 out of 16 non-qualified people of the 31 for the last chance qualifier didn't make it. That's almost half. > So you don't have airplanes in Australia? > I don't get it. If you have 3 people going from the same city, what is > so hard about all those 3 getting together and going? They ARE in the > same city, after all. If someone wants to play but doesn't intend to > attend the championships, he can give up his place to someone who DOES > intend, so you should have no trouble with all X qualifiers intending to > go to the Nationals. Apparently you haven't read what I've typed. Did you not see the $700 plane trip I talked about? And as for passing up qualifing, where is that allowed in the rules? Or should I just make a seperate subject to ask this question, as it seems to be turning more into a bitch session between the two of us, rather then an actual discussion. > Well, shit, Jamie, travel costs money. So do games, and CCGs are NOT a > cheap hobby. Respectfully suggest: Job. Or Better Job. Or Savings. > Whichever. Well that's a big fat DUH. > It is allowed. It was allowed last Atlanta qualifier, at least -- a > couple people made clear prior to the tournament that they were not > intending to travel, and so should be left out of the qualifier > considerations. > > It was mandated that they make this clear BEFORE the tournament began, > however -- not afterwards, when they'd seen how they did! Was this made out by the Judge of the tournament or is it in the bloody rules? Cause the judges I've talked to have said no. Give me some facts! You told me to "research" before I state something, tell me where to get it! > I don't see why Anchorage shouldn't be allowed to hold a qualifier. It > can be the Igloo Region (IR). > >> It takes me more than a 10-hour drive to get to Atlantic City, Boston, > >> or Washington, DC -- the sites of the nearest three other qualifiers. > >> There are no other qualifiers closer to me currently scheduled. > > > >But if you live in Atlantic City, you are within a 10-hour drive to > >Washington, missing Atlanta and Boston by a few hours. > > But I don't live in Atlantic City, I live in Atlanta. What makes you > think only Australians have it so rough? How about the poor LA crowd? For you, yes, it's more then a 10 hour drive. But as I said, IF you live in Atlantic city... Jeez, read what I say before you go making an arse out of yourself, and fill this discussion with bullshit. > We won't even TALK about the drive to Seattle or California. It's not > even an option worth considering unless you begin to involve airplanes. But it's still less then a $200 plane ticket to zoom up and down the west coast. > Have you ever seen Kansas? Yes, I have. 3/4's of Australia make Kansas look like London. > And we have how many more players than Australia exactly? Probably alot more. But, since you do have more, more show up to the qualifiers, more qualify, and more can make it to the Nats. Because Australia is different (I'm saying this again. Have you caught on to this yet?) > >Isolated City In The World, (it's closer to the Capitol of Indonesia > >then it's own National Capitol of Canberra) has yet to have anyone who > >qualified show up to the Nats. Because anyone who did would have to > > So they aren't even relevant to the conversation, then. Actually, yes they are. Because they are so isolated, we can't get players from Perth (almost 20 of them) to the Nats (usually held on the east coast). It's supposed to be a Continental Championship. How can it be called Continental, if only one part of the country shows up? > But that's perhaps because people travel from Miami to Seattle all the > time, and therefore airfare is cheaper. > Life is not always fair. Deal with it. Now to this I have say, what does this have to concern with the conversation? Actually, it sortta does. So, more people travel from Miami to Seattle. Well guess what, travel in Australia is more difficult. It's different then in the USA. So because of the differences, the rules for qualifing should be different. > Oh yeah, I can just nip off to Vancouver's qualifier. WhatEVER. Oh yeah, I can just nip off to the Australian East Coast held Nats. WhatEVER. > What? What? Sorry? What? When I've just pointed out that "A" doesn't > affect "B", you can't say that "A" divides "B" to a very small number. > You need to show that "A" actually affects "B" in some manner first. <sigh> Group A. Those who qualify and those who didn't. Group B. Those who can go, and those who can't. The more of Group A that qualify, the larger the part of Group B that can go can be. And you're forgetting Group C. Those can't be bothered to go. Usually, these consist of people of Group A who didn't qualify. But they also at the same time can be apart of the Group B who can go. > You may note that I'm discussing it. > But I insulted you. Twice, in fact. Care to go for three? If this is what you call a discussion, I really can't see you having many socially adept friends. Your few friends must be just as desperate. > oooOOOeers, Internet threats. Bring it! As anyone who's met me can > tell you, I'm perfectly willing to say to someone's face anything I say > here. I have, in fact, met people I've argued with (at GenCon) and had > a good laugh about it -- it seems that somehow, after meeting me, they > understand a bit better where I come from and why I say the things I do. > And vice versa, in fact. Joy, someday when I make it back to the states for a bit, I can honestly think about meeting you face to face and give you the chance to say, and then think, why the fuck would I even bother with you? I think that makes 3 for me as well. <grin> > I'd just like to point out that airfare from Perth to your Nationals is > pocket change compared to airfare from the US to Australia, or vice > versa. That said, I am so far behind on my world travel plans it's not > even funny, and I have a number of people in Australia I'd love to meet. > Careful what you wish for, it just might happen. Actually, it's almost half the cost. US$700 for Perth to travel to the Nationals, about $1600 to travel from the US to Australia. Don't you research something before you talk about something? > You have yet to demonstrate to me why Australia is so much different. Then you haven't been listening to what I've been saying, and I hope to God you are not the final voice on getting this changed for a different country/continent. > You may notice that not once did I ever bring up the possibility of your > traveling to another country's Championships. I don't know why you keep > mentioning it, except maybe to divert attention from the real issue. Because apparently it does matter. Is the reason they cut from 50 to 25% done because of possibility of attending more Championships exist? Or did it happen because these are the rules of another country, and it must be made uniform. IF there are other reasons why the cut has been, and the above reasons have nothing to do with it, then fine, I concede, it doesn't have anything to do with. Please, tell me (and quote your research) I'm wrong. Oh wait, you're just going to go ahead and tell me I'm wrong, so don't tell me, PROVE IT. Jamie The Seppo

moon...@hotkey.net.au (Jamie The Seppo) wrote in message news:<32a7a630.04012...@posting.google.com>... > This is WAY too harsh for Australia. [snip Jamie's concerns] Barring all other concerns the new qualifying rules will mean far less people at the Australian Championships which only managed 33 last year. It's not good for Australian Vtes. The Championships may not even be worth holding. Why the change in rules? Did too many people qualify last year worldwide? Chris.

In message <32a7a630.04012...@posting.google.com>, moon...@hotkey.net.au (Jamie The Seppo) mumbled something about: >> So let me get this straight -- if I lived in Australia and I qualified, >> and my friend did not, it would make it harder for me to travel to the >> National Championships? >> I still just don't get the connection. > >Damn boy, can't you read between the lines? Hell, can you at least >read the lines? As I said, if I qualify, but my friend doesn't. He >can't afford to take the trip on the bet that he might qualify. So he >can't go. I can't go because I can't split the costs of the trip. STUFF COSTS MONEY. Job. Better Job. Save Up. Jamie, in case you haven't noticed, I have absolutely no sympathy for the "waaaah, I can't afford it" bandwagon. Plus, you still haven't explained why the X number of people who qualify from your city can't band together, split the costs of the trip, and have done with it THAT way. >> That has no relevance whatsoever to your previous objection. As you say >> below, we're only talking about Australia's nationals, not other >> countries'. > >Exactly. Australia's nationals. Not the US or Europe. We are >different then you. We need different rules. And then all those qualified players get to play in all the other championships, having qualified under easier conditions than everyone else? No, Jamie, I don't think so. There ain't no free lunch. You have to tough it out just like everyone else. Same game, same rules. Accidents of geography are something you just have to deal with, and the geography isn't that much different in the first place. Don't like it? Play weenie dominate Anarch Revolt. Good odds of qualifying. Low odds of fun during the qualifier, but hey, what's important to you, right? >> I still just don't get the connection. You mention carpooling, but >> damn, how hard can it BE? > >I'm originally from Orlando Florida, and when I was there, I loved >traveling by car for a LARP. I traveled up to the dick end of >Virginia, an 18 hour trip just for a weekend long Camarilla LARP game, Until you got kicked out, you mean? >all by myself. Now, most of it was was on nice 4 lane highways, with >rest stops and exits on average every 3 miles. That, and gas is still >cheap in the USA compared to the rest of the world. Here, we're >talking the same scenery, at best 2 radio stations per city (with a >very limited range), the entire trip just 2 lanes, and having to dodge >kangaroos. And I'm NOT kidding about the roos. Unlike deer to freeze >in headlights, roos JUMP into the headlights. So going by yourself >for long trips by yourself, is pretty much the most boring thing there >is in the world. It IS THAT HARD. And it isn't that cheap. We're >talking a $1 a liter. More then 4 liters to the gallon. $4 in >Australian, works to about $3 USA. And you can't tell me that gas has >hit (well, maybe in some parts for the 93oct stuff) has even hit $2. All of this is the most astonishingly long whine I've ever read in my LIFE, Jamie. 18 hours in a car is a fucking awful, pain in the ass drive no matter HOW many people are with you. The details are just that; details. Deer, kangaroo, skunk, boring, whatever, IT'S ALL THE SAME. If it's too boring for you, save up and fly. If you really want to carpool, split with the other qualifiers. >> Even though if you assume that #1 is true, almost everyone who travels >> to the Nationals will already be qualified, thereby making it EASIER to >> qualify at the Nationals themselves? > >Almost? 6 out of 16 non-qualified people of the 31 for the last >chance qualifier didn't make it. That's almost half. So MORE THAN HALF of the people who weren't qualified made it? That's absolutely ridiculous, Jamie. Why even have qualifiers? >> So you don't have airplanes in Australia? >> I don't get it. If you have 3 people going from the same city, what is >> so hard about all those 3 getting together and going? They ARE in the >> same city, after all. If someone wants to play but doesn't intend to >> attend the championships, he can give up his place to someone who DOES >> intend, so you should have no trouble with all X qualifiers intending to >> go to the Nationals. > >Apparently you haven't read what I've typed. Did you not see the $700 >plane trip I talked about? Answer the question, Jamie. What's so hard about the 3 people who qualified from the same city getting together and carpooling? >And as for passing up qualifing, where is that allowed in the rules? It's called common sense, son. Why don't you ask VEKN if this is legal? >> Well, shit, Jamie, travel costs money. So do games, and CCGs are NOT a >> cheap hobby. Respectfully suggest: Job. Or Better Job. Or Savings. >> Whichever. > >Well that's a big fat DUH. Good! So you're going to quit whining about anything related to the cost, then, right? Since you're now aware that things cost money? I missed GenCon two years ago because I couldn't afford the plane fare and hotel costs due to sudden car repairs. I didn't whine about it -- I just said "nope, can't make it, sorry". I was qualified, too, but such is life -- unexpected things happen. I certainly didn't blame VEKN, the Nationals, or GenCon for making it too expensive for me, nor did I go out of my way to ask for "exceptions" to be made in some fashion. I dealt with it. Like grown-ups do. >Was this made out by the Judge of the tournament or is it in the >bloody rules? Cause the judges I've talked to have said no. Give me >some facts! You told me to "research" before I state something, tell >me where to get it! Do some fucking work on your own, Jamie. I'm not here to spoon-feed your lazy ass. Get it in gear, get some emails sent, and put some EFFORT into it. You are nothing but a whiny, freeloading sonofabitch, and I'm really tired of seeing your pissing and moaning EVERY time something doesn't go exactly as you had hoped. >> But I don't live in Atlantic City, I live in Atlanta. What makes you >> think only Australians have it so rough? How about the poor LA crowd? > >For you, yes, it's more then a 10 hour drive. But as I said, IF you >live in Atlantic city... Quit with the whatifs, Jamie. Deal with the facts. Plenty of cities in America have the same problem you have. Notice that none of us are whining about how the rules should be changed for us -- we're making arrangements and dealing with the problem. >Jeez, read what I say before you go making an arse out of yourself, You could do with this yourself. >> We won't even TALK about the drive to Seattle or California. It's not >> even an option worth considering unless you begin to involve airplanes. > >But it's still less then a $200 plane ticket to zoom up and down the >west coast. Atlanta = East Coast. Indianapolis = East Coast (ish). Seattle = West Coast. California = West Coast. Thus endeth the basic geography lesson. >> And we have how many more players than Australia exactly? > >Probably alot more. But, since you do have more, more show up to the >qualifiers, more qualify, and more can make it to the Nats. Because >Australia is different (I'm saying this again. Have you caught on to >this yet?) And I'm saying, SO WHAT. Life is hard. It would be unfair to everyone else if you got special treatment. Besides, Australia isn't THAT much different from other countries. If a special exception was made for Australia, then it would have to be made for EVERY other country as well, and then you just get a tarpit of worthlessness. >> So they aren't even relevant to the conversation, then. > >Actually, yes they are. Because they are so isolated, we can't get >players from Perth (almost 20 of them) to the Nats (usually held on >the east coast). Accidents of geography matter why? Oh, that's right, not at all. Hey, I have an idea! Hold your Championships somewhere more centralized! What a freakin' concept, huh? >It's supposed to be a Continental Championship. How can it be called >Continental, if only one part of the country shows up? Not our problem. Your people don't show, figure out a way to get them to show. >> But that's perhaps because people travel from Miami to Seattle all the >> time, and therefore airfare is cheaper. >> Life is not always fair. Deal with it. > >Now to this I have say, what does this have to concern with the >conversation? Actually, it sortta does. So, more people travel from >Miami to Seattle. Well guess what, travel in Australia is more >difficult. It's different then in the USA. So because of the >differences, the rules for qualifing should be different. It's not that much different. It's just as much of a pain in the ass to travel cross-country. Prices are slightly different. Again, deal with it. >> Oh yeah, I can just nip off to Vancouver's qualifier. WhatEVER. > >Oh yeah, I can just nip off to the Australian East Coast held Nats. >WhatEVER. I'm glad you agree that things are, in fact, equally difficult in both countries when you start taking distance into account. ><sigh> Group A. Those who qualify and those who didn't. >Group B. Those who can go, and those who can't. >The more of Group A that qualify, the larger the part of Group B that >can go can be. No relevance. See above: Group A can get together and make sure all its members are in Group B. You have never answered yet why this isn't possible. Maybe it's because nobody would want to be stuck in a car for 18 minutes, much less 18 hours, with you? >> I'd just like to point out that airfare from Perth to your Nationals is >> pocket change compared to airfare from the US to Australia, or vice >> versa. That said, I am so far behind on my world travel plans it's not >> even funny, and I have a number of people in Australia I'd love to meet. >> Careful what you wish for, it just might happen. > >Actually, it's almost half the cost. US$700 for Perth to travel to >the Nationals, about $1600 to travel from the US to Australia. Don't >you research something before you talk about something? Uh, yeah, I do. $700 is pocket change compared to $1600. What is WRONG with you, boy? Do you not have a basic concept of math? >> You have yet to demonstrate to me why Australia is so much different. > >Then you haven't been listening to what I've been saying, and I hope >to God you are not the final voice on getting this changed for a >different country/continent. yada yada yada. You should try reading what *I* say for a change, and understanding that making special exceptions for one whiny bastard doesn't really fit into anyone's plans. >> You may notice that not once did I ever bring up the possibility of your >> traveling to another country's Championships. I don't know why you keep >> mentioning it, except maybe to divert attention from the real issue. > >Because apparently it does matter. Is the reason they cut from 50 to >25% done because of possibility of attending more Championships exist? > Or did it happen because these are the rules of another country, and >it must be made uniform. Either of these might be a valid reason. >IF there are other reasons why the cut has been, and the above reasons >have nothing to do with it, then fine, I concede, it doesn't have >anything to do with. Please, tell me (and quote your research) I'm >wrong. Oh wait, you're just going to go ahead and tell me I'm wrong, >so don't tell me, PROVE IT. You already proved it for me. When almost twice as many people qualify as don't qualify, there's something wrong with the system. The intent of qualifiers is to REDUCE the number of players, preferably by an appreciable amount. In small syllables: 10 is almost twice as many as 6. Qualifiers are not intended to be all-inclusive affairs. If almost everyone can qualify, why even hold them in the first place? Thanks for playing! Hope to catch your whine on the flip-flop. [ quoted text not captured ]

chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote in message news:<5a63bace.04012...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Excuse me??? In 1999 the VTES European Championships started with a mere 59 players (note that at that time, everybody could play, no prequalification process needed)! Now there are about 200 players attending the weekend. What does this mean? That you need a little faith, and that numbers will grow over time. Also, if only 2-3 players are going from each qualifier in Australia, it doesn't matter if 50% or 25% qualify, don't you think so? As LSJ already said - any player can state before the event that he doesn't want to qualify and is treated as a pre-qualified player then, i.e. not taking away any slots for the other not-yet-qualified players. Attending continentals is not really a question of money - it's one of priorities I'd say. :) Carl

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 22:45:15 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >In message <32a7a630.04012...@posting.google.com>, >moon...@hotkey.net.au (Jamie The Seppo) mumbled something about: [snip] > >So let me get this straight -- if I lived in Australia and I qualified, >and my friend did not, it would make it harder for me to travel to the >National Championships? > >I still just don't get the connection. I might have $40 for petrol. my buddy might have $40. together, we have $80, and thus can afford to drive to the championships, and share the driving. individually, if only one of us qualified, the non-qualified probbaly would not like to go, and the qualified would not be able to afford the petrol, or not want to drive 6hrs+ solo. >>The less number of people that qualify means several things >>1) Not all who qualify make it to the Nats, so we're cutting down the >>number of people who attend the Nats. > >I still just don't get the connection. You mention carpooling, but >damn, how hard can it BE? as far as i can tell, about half the aussie scene are students. without scholarships. >>2) Harder to qualify means people aren't going to take the risk of >>traveling huge distances for the last chance qualifier > >Even though if you assume that #1 is true, almost everyone who travels >to the Nationals will already be qualified, thereby making it EASIER to >qualify at the Nationals themselves? not under the new scheme. in the new scheme, already qualified players do not add to the event turn out number to determine the 25%. it's strictly 25% of the UNqualified. >>3) It makes it harder to form a carpool/caravan to the Nats, if there >>is not that many people going to the Nats because they qualified. > >So you don't have airplanes in Australia? nope. just big kangaroos with flaps of skin under their legs to glide with. very expensive, and messy. >I don't get it. If you have 3 people going from the same city, what is >so hard about all those 3 getting together and going? They ARE in the >same city, after all. If someone wants to play but doesn't intend to >attend the championships, he can give up his place to someone who DOES >intend, not quite. he can give up his right to qualify, but he can't be sure the next guy down will actually want to go. and a qn for LSJ: do people who voluntariy forgoe a qualifying spot count for the event turn out number for the 25% calculation? [snip] >We won't even TALK about the drive to Seattle or California. It's not >even an option worth considering unless you begin to involve airplanes. why would you drive an airplane rather than fly it? me funny. >>Unlike Perth, who have to drive over 24 hours to make it to the >>nearest Qualifier besides their own. 24 hours on the one of most >>desolate 2 lane highways in the world, through the driest states on >>the driest continent. > >Have you ever seen Kansas? also, antarctica is techinically drier than australia, as a continent. >>However, I was able to find out that there are 8 regions to the USA. >>So that's 8 Regional Qualifiers and 1 Last Chance. That's 2 more >>qualifiers then Austalia. I also considered that Perth, the Most > >And we have how many more players than Australia exactly? 3. you, ben peal, and...ummm... Xian. [snip] >Life is not always fair. Deal with it. he is dealing, i guess, by trying to make it better for himself rather than just take it on the chin. >>Oh yeah, and this total of 9 Qualifiers does NOT include Canada's or >>any other other qualifiers in the North American continent, as I hate >>to insult them by lumping them completely with the USA. > >Oh yeah, I can just nip off to Vancouver's qualifier. WhatEVER. don't you have flying kangaroos over there? [snip] > >I'd just like to point out that airfare from Perth to your Nationals is >pocket change compared to airfare from the US to Australia, or vice >versa. That said, I am so far behind on my world travel plans it's not >even funny, and I have a number of people in Australia I'd love to meet. >Careful what you wish for, it just might happen. oh, pick me! i snipped a lot of stuff because, well, i had nothing to say about it. :D salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

<snip whine about Australia> Sure, Australia is big. I live in the northern part of Sweden. Our only qualifier is held in the sourthern part of Sweden. Shit happens. Vtes is a very small game, and there isn´t any money to be won, but last year I travelled there anyway. I guess it´s about priority. And if I WOULD qualify for Eurochamps, it is possibly held in, lets say Spain or Italy. THAT I would realy have to think twice about. I mean, just the language thing is terrifying. Vtes is alot about communicating, and the difference in english-skill between most swedish people and most italians are veeery large. So you see, you australians have some problems, we have other problems. <snip Derek Ray> Derek, why do you bother to answer posts like this? I mean, if you´re so certain that Jamie is all alone in the world with his problem (you repeat that alot), then you wouldn´t need to bother facing him with arguments? Also, as usual, your arguments isn´t very good. Or at least the way you put them. Try gentle up a little. And focus. LSJ-ish.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:anvb10lo9hv4od56h...@4ax.com... > In message <32a7a630.04012...@posting.google.com>, > moon...@hotkey.net.au (Jamie The Seppo) mumbled something about: > > >Exactly. Australia's nationals. Not the US or Europe. We are > >different then you. We need different rules. > > And then all those qualified players get to play in all the other > championships, having qualified under easier conditions than everyone > else? No, Jamie, I don't think so. There ain't no free lunch. You > have to tough it out just like everyone else. Same game, same rules. > Accidents of geography are something you just have to deal with, and the > geography isn't that much different in the first place. Dude, it's not like this is a free lunch kind of situation. The VTES championship tournament series appears to exist as a promotional tool for the game. We expect, then, that White Wolf wants it to be as effective a promotional tool as possible. If changing the qualifying rules makes the qualifier/championships in Australia become un-useful to Australian VTES players, then it's not going to promote the game very well for them, is it? As I understand it, the change to the 25% rule (and the omission of already-qualified players in calculations) is intended both to increase the number of qualifying spots for large tournaments (eg the 170-player last-chance European qualifier last year) and to slightly decrease the number of spots from 50% for small tournaments (since it seems to have been seen as "too easy" with the "count already-qualified players" method that was in use last year). It's only very recently that there even *existed* a qualifier system for VTES championships - until I think three years ago, the "national" or "North American" championship tournaments (at GenCon US for example) were open events; all you had to do was show up. Now, obviously, limiting qualifiers to the top 25% of finishers should produce a "more competitive" (for some values of competitive) championship tournament than the previous top 50% (for small tournaments). But it's not necessarily going to be *much* more competitive, and it's not a priori obvious that 50% is too high a percentage. And why the whining about people whining? I understand that you don't consider always staying polite on usenet to be a worthwhile use of your time. But I can't really say I understand why. Sure, the newsgroup doesn't *have* to be a welcoming or friendly or polite place for it to be useful to some people. But it might be useful to more people if it were. It's not your job to make it that way, of course, and it's your right to say what you want. But I doubt that it ever helps anything to insult people in public. Even if it is "just usenet" and even if you do think they were asking for it. :-) Josh played in an atlanta qualifier that qualified all but two of the sixteen attendees, once

moon...@hotkey.net.au (Jamie The Seppo) wrote in message news:<32a7a630.04012...@posting.google.com>... > This is WAY too harsh for Australia. My point of vue : Australia have 235 players registered in VEKN data base. About the same size of one of the great european countries (Geramny, England, France, Italy, Spain, ... not a limitative listy). Why not throw out the system of qualifiers in australia ? If australian organizer can handle a tournament with 100+ players, on a two day event, there is only one reason to use the same system as the others continents : equality. But, is equality is better than adaptation to a different continent ? If the australian princes think that the sysstem is not good for theirs continents, why notlet them propose something different ? If Jamie is the only players to think that, there will be no other complain. If, the princes of australia think the same, who are we, to answer him he's wrong ? I'm european, i cannot talk about the system in US, or South America. So, perhaps we can let Jamie propose something, and propose it to VEKN and WW, without sarcasm, and alacrity (+1 stealth, and a manoeuver or press at superior). By the way, yes, Kangaroo are far expensive than planes;-))) Kamel Senni, Prince of a very dense urban zone...(and without a car licence...and i'm more than 18..Is an american can understand that ;-)))).

kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr (Kamel SENNI) wrote in message news:<1b066664.04012...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] At last some one who can look outside the box! I like this idea. When I have a discussion with others, I get the feeling people don't understand the differences between countries!!! The Oz Nats attracts alot of people. We can't manage to get many big tournaments. Though I dont have the stats, I have my experience. The OZ Nats rock because there are so many more people there. Players in Australia are less likely to travel now to qualifier because their chance to qualify has been greaty reduced. I am concerned... and I wish that people would stop and consider the differences between place. Andrew Daley

> > > > Barring all other concerns the new qualifying rules will mean far less > > people at the Australian Championships which only managed 33 last > > year. It's not good for Australian Vtes. The Championships may not > > even be worth holding. > > > > Why the change in rules? Did too many people qualify last year > > worldwide? > > > > Chris. > > Excuse me??? > > In 1999 the VTES European Championships started with a mere 59 players > (note that at that time, everybody could play, no prequalification > process needed)! Now there are about 200 players attending the > weekend. > > What does this mean? That you need a little faith, and that numbers > will grow over time. If we had 59 players last year i wouldn't be so worried. We only had 33 though and under the new rules we'll be lucky to get 20. The scene here isn't big enough to handle the new rules yet. > > Also, if only 2-3 players are going from each qualifier in Australia, > it doesn't matter if 50% or 25% qualify, don't you think so? If that were the case then you would be correct however that is not the case. Most of the players who attend the Nats come from the major Eastern cities. It is not evenly distributed therefore there will be far fewer players attending the Championships. > > As LSJ already said - any player can state before the event that he > doesn't want to qualify and is treated as a pre-qualified player then, > i.e. not taking away any slots for the other not-yet-qualified > players. I didn't see that but even still that doesn't really help. Firstly you're assuming people know for sure whether they are going or not. Most don't. People don't want to give up the chance to qualify in case they can make the Nats however unlikely it appears at the time. > > Attending continentals is not really a question of money - it's one of > priorities I'd say. :) > I didn't bring up concerns about money, that was Jamie. The long distances are a separate issue that we have to deal with. My concern is that the new rules are going to make the Australian Nats irrelevant. Chris.

[snip reasonable points] > If the australian princes think that the sysstem is not good for > theirs continents, why notlet them propose something different ? Apparently the princes (or at least one) approached LSJ and he said that the rules would stay. > If Jamie is the only players to think that, there will be no other > complain. He's not. AFAIK most players here recognise it as a problem. > By the way, yes, Kangaroo are far expensive than planes;-))) And their pouches are a bitch if you've got long legs. > > Kamel Senni, Prince of a very dense urban zone...(and without a car > licence...and i'm more than 18..Is an american can understand that > ;-)))). Chris.

In message <5a3b0aea.04012...@posting.google.com>, as...@hotmail.com (Henrik Klippstr?m) mumbled something about: >Sure, Australia is big. I live in the northern part of Sweden. Our >only qualifier is held in the sourthern part of Sweden. Shit happens. >Vtes is a very small game, and there isn´t any money to be won, but >last year I travelled there anyway. I guess it´s about priority. Spot on. >Derek, why do you bother to answer posts like this? I mean, if you´re Because he actually put some argumentation in them about the issue itself, instead of just calling me a naughty boo-boo. >arguments? Also, as usual, your arguments isn´t very good. Or at least >the way you put them. Try gentle up a little. And focus. LSJ-ish. You just don't like them because I phrase harsh truths harshly, instead of putting a nice chocolate coating on them. [ quoted text not captured ]

Henrik Klippstr?m expounded: > <snip Derek Ray> Sounds painful.

Chris Arthur expounded: > [snip reasonable points] > > > If the australian princes think that the sysstem is not good for > > theirs continents, why notlet them propose something different ? > > Apparently the princes (or at least one) approached LSJ and he said > that the rules would stay. Might make a difference whether it was one or the whole group. Either way it seems silly from where I'm sitting. (far far away) > > By the way, yes, Kangaroo are far expensive than planes;-))) > > And their pouches are a bitch if you've got long legs. Damn. That's me not going to teh Oz tournament then!

In message <bv5vec$ofg83$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:anvb10lo9hv4od56h...@4ax.com... >> >> And then all those qualified players get to play in all the other >> championships, having qualified under easier conditions than everyone >> else? No, Jamie, I don't think so. There ain't no free lunch. You >> have to tough it out just like everyone else. Same game, same rules. >> Accidents of geography are something you just have to deal with, and >the >> geography isn't that much different in the first place. > >Dude, it's not like this is a free lunch kind of situation. The VTES >championship tournament series appears to exist as a promotional tool >for the game. We expect, then, that White Wolf wants it to be as >effective a promotional tool as possible. If changing the qualifying >rules makes the qualifier/championships in Australia become un-useful to >Australian VTES players, then it's not going to promote the game very >well for them, is it? I'm yet to be convinced that changing the qualifying rules in Australia has made it unuseful to Australian V:TES players. There are a lot of things which need to be answered here before I'll even REMOTELY be convinced -- Jamie keeps refusing to answer those, instead embarking on rants about how Australia is big and it's hard to travel from place to place and sometimes expensive. To this I say: Well, no shit. Big countries are like that. >As I understand it, the change to the 25% rule (and the omission of >already-qualified players in calculations) is intended both to increase >the number of qualifying spots for large tournaments (eg the 170-player >last-chance European qualifier last year) and to slightly decrease the >number of spots from 50% for small tournaments (since it seems to have >been seen as "too easy" with the "count already-qualified players" >method that was in use last year). That is what I understand as well. >were open events; all you had to do was show up. Now, obviously, >limiting qualifiers to the top 25% of finishers should produce a "more >competitive" (for some values of competitive) championship tournament >than the previous top 50% (for small tournaments). But it's not >necessarily going to be *much* more competitive, and it's not a priori >obvious that 50% is too high a percentage. I'm not entirely certain that the objective in reducing the number of players is to produce a "more competitive" environment, per se. I believe that all we know is that its objective is to give more spaces to places with more people, and less weight to places with fewer. >And why the whining about people whining? I understand that you don't Jamie has stated to me in the past that he has no compunction about attempting to get something for nothing, whether or not it's the RIGHT thing to do, and if he has to whine to get his way, so be it. As such, I feel somewhat compelled to put a wrench in the works, especially when I do not trust his motives. >right to say what you want. But I doubt that it ever helps anything to >insult people in public. Even if it is "just usenet" and even if you do >think they were asking for it. :-) The "why" of all this is a pretty long story. :) Suffice it to say I have reasons, none of them (except the above) involve Jamie, and I am just really sick -and- tired of the spoiled brats out there whose first reaction to being given something is to whine about how it's not good enough. Perhaps it comes from joining the game at a time when it was dead -- nothing new would be forthcoming, and nothing was on the horizon. There's been a lot of pissing and moaning about Anarchs -- well damn, kids, would you prefer they printed NOTHING? >played in an atlanta qualifier that qualified all but two of the sixteen >attendees, once Yes, this would be yet ANOTHER example of why I'm on the side of making this change. Too many people qualify at the smaller tournaments. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <s18c109hah81umgmn...@4ax.com>, salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 22:45:15 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >scrawled: > >>So let me get this straight -- if I lived in Australia and I qualified, >>and my friend did not, it would make it harder for me to travel to the >>National Championships? >> >>I still just don't get the connection. > >I might have $40 for petrol. my buddy might have $40. together, we >have $80, and thus can afford to drive to the championships, and share >the driving. individually, if only one of us qualified, the >non-qualified probbaly would not like to go, and the qualified would >not be able to afford the petrol, or not want to drive 6hrs+ solo. So all the people from your city who qualify hate each other so much that they couldn't stand to be in the car for that long? >>I don't get it. If you have 3 people going from the same city, what is >>so hard about all those 3 getting together and going? They ARE in the >>same city, after all. If someone wants to play but doesn't intend to >>attend the championships, he can give up his place to someone who DOES >>intend, > >not quite. he can give up his right to qualify, but he can't be sure >the next guy down will actually want to go. And the next guy down can give it up, etc. >>We won't even TALK about the drive to Seattle or California. It's not >>even an option worth considering unless you begin to involve airplanes. > >why would you drive an airplane rather than fly it? me funny. Bigger tires, and you can bang a flight attendant in the back while your co-pilot drives. >i snipped a lot of stuff because, well, i had nothing to say about it. >:D Me too. :D [ quoted text not captured ]

> STUFF COSTS MONEY. Job. Better Job. Save Up. As said someone said later in this thread, it's not the money, it's priorities. I have 2 kids and a mortgage. I'm about to re-start school full-time. I have the money to go, but I can think of many other things to spend in on when I only have a smaller chance to qualify. i.e. feed the kids or have a chance to qualify. Being actually human, I choose the first. > Jamie, in case you haven't noticed, I have absolutely no sympathy for > the "waaaah, I can't afford it" bandwagon. Plus, you still haven't > explained why the X number of people who qualify from your city can't > band together, split the costs of the trip, and have done with it THAT > way. Salem said it best. 2 People qualify, the trip would cost $80. I can afford $40, but not $80. The other person can't go, so I can't go. Salem better worded what I've been trying to say. > And then all those qualified players get to play in all the other > championships, having qualified under easier conditions than everyone > else? No, Jamie, I don't think so. There ain't no free lunch. You > have to tough it out just like everyone else. Same game, same rules. > Accidents of geography are something you just have to deal with, and the > geography isn't that much different in the first place. Accidents?!?! Holy shit, a whirling teleportational vortex of doom, I've landed in BFE Australia! Now where the fuck am I gonna game??? I might as well just go back to the states so I can game easier. Sure, pick up my bags, leave the wife and kids, move back in with my parents, just for a game that doesn't pay. Riiiiiight... I'm not asking for a free lunch. Well, if you're paying... What I'm asking for is fairness and equality. All men maybe created equal, but population distributation sure as hell isn't. 20 Million people in a country the size of the USA, which holds now almost 300 Million. The travel is more costly, and the sizes of the tournaments are smaller. I'm asking for the same rules for the same game, but extensions on continents with a MUCH greater disadvantage. > Don't like it? Play weenie dominate Anarch Revolt. Good odds of > qualifying. Low odds of fun during the qualifier, but hey, what's > important to you, right? And what happens if everyone gets the same bloomin' idea? I want to qualify because I play better, not play a better deck at cheese. > Until you got kicked out, you mean? Yes, but realization to the fact that I am devoted fan to White Wolf allowed me back in. > All of this is the most astonishingly long whine I've ever read in my > LIFE, Jamie. 18 hours in a car is a fucking awful, pain in the ass > drive no matter HOW many people are with you. The details are just > that; details. Deer, kangaroo, skunk, boring, whatever, IT'S ALL THE > SAME. If it's too boring for you, save up and fly. If you really want > to carpool, split with the other qualifiers. IF THERE ARE LESS QUALIFIERS, THERE IS LESS TO SPLIT UP. That is the whole point I've been trying to get out! But either you're not paying attention, or your not reading the entirety of my posts, or you're just plain stupid to see this. > So MORE THAN HALF of the people who weren't qualified made it? That's > absolutely ridiculous, Jamie. Why even have qualifiers? It ALSO happened to be the city of Sydney's AND the last chance qualifier at the same time. There were more slots open because of this. Out of the 15 or so people who tried to go for the Adelaide qualifier, 7 qualified, 4 from Adelaide, but I was the only one who made it! > Answer the question, Jamie. What's so hard about the 3 people who > qualified from the same city getting together and carpooling? Because there won't be 3 people trying to carpool! There will be only 1! > It's called common sense, son. Why don't you ask VEKN if this is legal? Actually, with this game, common sense does tend to be left out <grin>. And I did ask, and I got a reply. Now I just have to complain about the fact that those who pass up their qualifying spot still don't count to the percentage. > Good! So you're going to quit whining about anything related to the > cost, then, right? Since you're now aware that things cost money? Nope, pissing you off with my whining has become a completely new obsession with me. > I missed GenCon two years ago because I couldn't afford the plane fare > and hotel costs due to sudden car repairs. I didn't whine about it -- I > just said "nope, can't make it, sorry". I was qualified, too, but such > is life -- unexpected things happen. I certainly didn't blame VEKN, the > Nationals, or GenCon for making it too expensive for me, nor did I go > out of my way to ask for "exceptions" to be made in some fashion. > I dealt with it. Like grown-ups do. If I can't afford to go because of car problems or my kids get sick, such is life. If I can't afford to go because VEKN changed the rules, making it harder to qualify so that more people can attend (therefore, increasing the cost of a carpool), because they aren't taking into consideration that not all countries are the same, then I have problem. And the number of people does not really matter, when only 5 can play in the Finals. Hell, the less people that show up, the better chance I have of playing in the Finals, but this doesn't matter to me. I want the chance to play competively against the best of Australia, not those who can afford to make it. > Do some fucking work on your own, Jamie. I'm not here to spoon-feed > your lazy ass. Get it in gear, get some emails sent, and put some > EFFORT into it. You are nothing but a whiny, freeloading sonofabitch, > and I'm really tired of seeing your pissing and moaning EVERY time > something doesn't go exactly as you had hoped. If you're tired of seeing it, why reply? Anyone with brains would have figured out that argueing with me only drives me more to it. > Atlanta = East Coast. > Indianapolis = East Coast (ish). > > Seattle = West Coast. > California = West Coast. > > Thus endeth the basic geography lesson. And don't forget Portland and Olympia, and California isn't a city, it's the state with the highest population. Perth, the West Cost of Australia. That's it. There is NOTHING else on the West Coast! That is the difference between the states and Australia! One city with less then 2 million people, is a 24 hour drive to the nearest city of over 100,000 people. Anchorage doesn't have it this bad! > And I'm saying, SO WHAT. Life is hard. It would be unfair to everyone > else if you got special treatment. Besides, Australia isn't THAT much > different from other countries. If a special exception was made for > Australia, then it would have to be made for EVERY other country as > well, and then you just get a tarpit of worthlessness. Life is hard, I'll give you that. We play the role-playing games and the card games for a means to escape. Why my gaming should be considered a life or as hard as one is beyond me. > Accidents of geography matter why? Oh, that's right, not at all. > Hey, I have an idea! Hold your Championships somewhere more > centralized! What a freakin' concept, huh? WE CAN'T!!! JEEZ!!! The next nearest city is Adelaide or Alice Springs. There are no players in Alice Springs! It has less then 400,000 people living it, and it's nothing but a tourist trap! 80% of the VTES playing population is on the East Coast. Can't you get it through you're freaking mind that this place is DIFFERENT!!! What a concept! A place that isn't like America!!! > Not our problem. Your people don't show, figure out a way to get them > to show. Here's one. We change the VEKN Championship tournament qualifing rules to suit the country they are being held in. The Camarilla rules are different over here to suit the people living in them, why not the VEKN? > It's not that much different. It's just as much of a pain in the ass to > travel cross-country. Prices are slightly different. Hell No! It is different over here. In the states: Oh wow! A billboard to look at! A rest stop! South of the Border! That was a nice looking car that just passed us. Australia: 10,000 fucking beers on the wall later and you're lucky to see something else besides a tree or a dead kangaroo! And I'm not fucking kidding! And the states doesn't have Road Trains that can knock cars off the side of the road. And if you don't know what a Road Train is, it's because you are either in a different country and don't have them, or you haven't watched "Race for the Sun". > Again, deal with it. No, you deal with my legitmate complaints about the system. > Uh, yeah, I do. $700 is pocket change compared to $1600. > What is WRONG with you, boy? Do you not have a basic concept of math? What is wrong with you?!?! It sure is hell ain't poverty!!! $50 dollars is pocket change to $1600, but almost half isn't. And I must've missed that day in school, when during math they taught about the laws of pocket change. Oh wait, there are none, duh. > yada yada yada. You should try reading what *I* say for a change, and > understanding that making special exceptions for one whiny bastard > doesn't really fit into anyone's plans. You'll notice now on the rest of this thread, I'm not ONE whiney bastard. I'm a considered player of this game with legitmate concerns that I share with many. Does your foot taste nice? > >Because apparently it does matter. Is the reason they cut from 50 to > >25% done because of possibility of attending more Championships exist? > > Or did it happen because these are the rules of another country, and > >it must be made uniform. > > Either of these might be a valid reason. I don't think they are, especially the last one. You think differently. Besides some guy who lives in Sweden, but is considerate of others, you are the only one. Now who is the one whiney bastard? > Thanks for playing! Hope to catch your whine on the flip-flop. Here it is! Enjoy! Jamie The Seppo

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >Dude, it's not like this is a free lunch kind of situation. The VTES > >championship tournament series appears to exist as a promotional tool > >for the game. We expect, then, that White Wolf wants it to be as > >effective a promotional tool as possible. If changing the qualifying > >rules makes the qualifier/championships in Australia become un-useful to > >Australian VTES players, then it's not going to promote the game very > >well for them, is it? > > I'm yet to be convinced that changing the qualifying rules in Australia > has made it unuseful to Australian V:TES players. There are a lot of > things which need to be answered here before I'll even REMOTELY be > convinced -- Jamie keeps refusing to answer those, instead embarking on > rants about how Australia is big and it's hard to travel from place to > place and sometimes expensive. To this I say: Well, no shit. Big > countries are like that. What needs to be answered? How does less qualifiers mean less people can afford to go? I've tried explaining that to you, but you haven't been seeing it. As for arguements from Europe, I definitely see your problems with language. Any proposals on how to get around it? But, one problem that Europe and America don't have, is that the tournaments can swap play locations. They can be more centralized on a geographical scale and a population scale at the same time. Australia doesn't have that. About 80% of the VTES playing population live on the East Coast. NO ONE lives in the Middle of Australia. Look at a map! Population census' can be found on the internet. Yes, there will always be difficulty in getting everyone to be able to attend, I understand that. But as Josh is saying, is making it harder to attend really for one country, really in the best interests of the players, WW and VEKN? > >As I understand it, the change to the 25% rule (and the omission of > >already-qualified players in calculations) is intended both to increase > >the number of qualifying spots for large tournaments (eg the 170-player > >last-chance European qualifier last year) and to slightly decrease the > >number of spots from 50% for small tournaments (since it seems to have > >been seen as "too easy" with the "count already-qualified players" > >method that was in use last year). > > That is what I understand as well. So this is the reason. Right. In here lies another problem. We will most likely NEVER have more then 100 people at a Nats. Our Qualifiers have all been below 35 attendees, with most numbering 15 or less. I believe we only had 2 qualifers of the 7 with more then 20, and that's including the last chance qualifier. And then there is the game itself. Of all the CCGs out there, it is one of the few that actively promotes a social aspect of the game. Hell, it's pracitically it's trademark! How can we promote this game as a social game in Australia, when only the same 20 people who can afford to show up or live in the city it's beheld show up? It's not a promotional gimick, it's an elist click! > >were open events; all you had to do was show up. Now, obviously, > >limiting qualifiers to the top 25% of finishers should produce a "more > >competitive" (for some values of competitive) championship tournament > >than the previous top 50% (for small tournaments). But it's not > >necessarily going to be *much* more competitive, and it's not a priori > >obvious that 50% is too high a percentage. > > I'm not entirely certain that the objective in reducing the number of > players is to produce a "more competitive" environment, per se. I > believe that all we know is that its objective is to give more spaces to > places with more people, and less weight to places with fewer. And here's another difference with this idea for Australia. We're the only continent with only 8 or 9 cities that can have a tournament with more then 4 people. America has 8 or 9 cities per region. Europe has more countries, so they can have more qualifiers. Australia doesn't have this. As had been said before, 50 to our Nats compared to ones with 170?! How does this even compare? We don't have an over-population problem at our Nats, we have an UNDERpopulation problem. > >And why the whining about people whining? I understand that you don't > > Jamie has stated to me in the past that he has no compunction about > attempting to get something for nothing, whether or not it's the RIGHT > thing to do, and if he has to whine to get his way, so be it. As such, > I feel somewhat compelled to put a wrench in the works, especially when > I do not trust his motives. Say what?!?! Where do I know you from? My motives are not singular to me. The lists here in Australia are all abuzz with complaints about this new system. You are right about one thing... I'll whine to get my way. But only when's it my last or only option. This isn't a whine. This is a serious complaint. > The "why" of all this is a pretty long story. :) Suffice it to say I > have reasons, none of them (except the above) involve Jamie, and I am > just really sick -and- tired of the spoiled brats out there whose first > reaction to being given something is to whine about how it's not good > enough. > > Perhaps it comes from joining the game at a time when it was dead -- > nothing new would be forthcoming, and nothing was on the horizon. > There's been a lot of pissing and moaning about Anarchs -- well damn, > kids, would you prefer they printed NOTHING? hehe... I didn't moan or complain about Anarchs. I've defended the cards most complained about (even though I hate Anarch Revolt, I like the idea that you have to build a deck around it to actually win with it). Rules declarations, fine, cause if I have to play to it, everyone else does. But this, this isn't fair, this is unpromotional for the players of Australia, and it's being made by people who don't understand the problems players are facing in Australia. THIS ISN'T A WHINE, THIS IS NATIONAL PRIDE!!!! > >played in an atlanta qualifier that qualified all but two of the sixteen > >attendees, once > > Yes, this would be yet ANOTHER example of why I'm on the side of making > this change. Too many people qualify at the smaller tournaments. =) I have no idea how that could've bloody have happened. Please explain. But otherwise, I cannot see this ever happening in Australia. If anything, all we have ARE small tournaments. Jamie The Seppo

> So all the people from your city who qualify hate each other so much > that they couldn't stand to be in the car for that long? heh, you've never been to Adelaide... Jamie The Seppo

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:28:56 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >In message <s18c109hah81umgmn...@4ax.com>, >salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: [shnip] >>I might have $40 for petrol. my buddy might have $40. together, we >>have $80, and thus can afford to drive to the championships, and share >>the driving. individually, if only one of us qualified, the >>non-qualified probbaly would not like to go, and the qualified would >>not be able to afford the petrol, or not want to drive 6hrs+ solo. > >So all the people from your city who qualify hate each other so much >that they couldn't stand to be in the car for that long? hate, not so much. not want to be in a car for that long....quite possibly. ;) but, it's more like this hypothetical....say the canberra qualifier is in april. the championships are going to be on somewhere near october/november. we get 20 to the tourney. not too bad for our city. 5 thus qualify all 5 are, luckily enough, keen to go. but then, in the 6 months leading up to the championship, shit might happen. babies get born (the prince of sydney's wife had a baby the day before the championship (congratulaions again! they named her Lucita, too)), incomes change, cars break down in a permanent sort of way. also, on the flip side....i might think i can't get to the championships. but, i don't know what's going to happen to my circumstances in the next 6 months, so i don't want to forgoe my potential spot by bowing out of contention before the qualifier starts. i'd take the spot if offered, and see what happens later. >> >>not quite. he can give up his right to qualify, but he can't be sure >>the next guy down will actually want to go. > >And the next guy down can give it up, etc. but he might want to go (before the qualifier). and then later it turns out he can't (he gets some mean-arse possessive girlfriend or something). bang. all your potential players from that city suddenly can't make it (in some sort of weirdo extreme case). >>>We won't even TALK about the drive to Seattle or California. It's not >>>even an option worth considering unless you begin to involve airplanes. >> >>why would you drive an airplane rather than fly it? me funny. > >Bigger tires, and you can bang a flight attendant in the back while your >co-pilot drives. right. that makes sense then. oh, and free peanuts. >>i snipped a lot of stuff because, well, i had nothing to say about it. >>:D > >Me too. :D I guess my closing remarks are: i think the new rules are going to really cut down on the interstate attendance at qualifiers and the championship (in australia). However, i think the added elitism for the championship event itself is not necessarily a bad thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jamie The Seppo wrote: [...] > > >were open events; all you had to do was show up. Now, obviously, > > >limiting qualifiers to the top 25% of finishers should produce a "more > > >competitive" (for some values of competitive) championship tournament > > >than the previous top 50% (for small tournaments). But it's not > > >necessarily going to be *much* more competitive, and it's not a priori > > >obvious that 50% is too high a percentage. > > > > I'm not entirely certain that the objective in reducing the number of > > players is to produce a "more competitive" environment, per se. I > > believe that all we know is that its objective is to give more spaces to > > places with more people, and less weight to places with fewer. > > And here's another difference with this idea for Australia. We're the > only continent with only 8 or 9 cities that can have a tournament with > more then 4 people. No. Oceania (Australia) is not the only continent with that problem. South America and Asia have a similar problem too (see the numbers I have attached at the end of this message). > America has 8 or 9 cities per region. Europe has > more countries, so they can have more qualifiers. Australia doesn't > have this. As had been said before, 50 to our Nats compared to ones > with 170?! How does this even compare? We don't have an > over-population problem at our Nats, we have an UNDERpopulation > problem. So it seems the problem comes from a continent (Oceania) having far less players than Europe and North America. If Oceania has less players, then the Australian Championship should have less participants too. Why should it have more? Why should it be easier for Australian players to qualify for other Continental Championships? The current system is meant to encourage participation. [...] I think the real problem is that V:EKN members in the world ========================== United States___2240 North America Spain___________924 Europe Canada__________686 North America France__________527 Europe Brazil__________370 South America United Kingdom__307 Europe Sweden__________273 Europe Australia_______276 Oceania Italy___________277 Europe Germany_________248 Europe Finland_________222 Europe Portugal________201 Europe Hungary_________156 Europe Poland__________135 Europe Czech Republic__109 Europe Norway__________107 Europe Philipines______103 Asia Austria_________91 Europe Croatia_________86 Europe Mexico__________80 North America Netherlands_____73 Europe Slovak Repiblic_66 Europe Denmark_________65 Europe Chile___________61 South America Belgium_________56 Europe Greece__________56 Europe New Zealand_____41 Oceania Russia__________31 Europe(1) Argentina_______26 South America Iceland_________22 Europe Ireland_________20 Europe Switzerland_____10 Europe Faroe Islands___8 Europe China___________6 Asia Israel__________6 Asia Singapore_______5 Asia Reunion Islands_1 Africa Estonia_________1 Europe South Korea_____1 Asia Panama__________1 North America Namibia_________1 Africa (1) Most players are from Moscow (i.e., European Russia). Europe________________________4071 North America_________________3007 South America_________________457 Oceania (Australia)___________317 Asia__________________________121 Africa________________________2 Greetings, Damnans

> Europe________________________4071 > North America_________________3007 > South America_________________457 > Oceania (Australia)___________317 > Asia__________________________121 > Africa________________________2 I just wanted to say that I think it is awesome that Africa even shows up on this report. Who would have thought that? I wonder if they are from Northern Africa or SubSahara Africa? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

> No. Oceania (Australia) is not the only continent with that problem. > > South America and Asia have a similar problem too (see the numbers I have > attached at the end of this message). Asia doesn't really have the same problem. They don't even have a Continental Championship at all. As for Oceania, I can't see anyone else from around the entire Pacific Islands coming here for a tournament, when for maybe a few hundred dollars more, they can attend the US Nats at GenCon. > So it seems the problem comes from a continent (Oceania) having far > less players than Europe and North America. > > If Oceania has less players, then the Australian Championship should > have less participants too. Why should it have more? Why should it be > easier for Australian players to qualify for other Continental > Championships? I concede that it will have a smaller amount. But cutting the number of qualifiers in half doesn't mean that the number of people attending the Nats will be halved. It will be more then half. This is due to the cutting of carpools and shared travel expenses. > The current system is meant to encourage participation. > [...] Australia does not have the problem that Europe and the US have, where their Nats are getting mauled with too many players. We also have the problem with our "Oceania" tournament being truely just Australian. We have just as good a chance of seeing players from Perth as we do seeing some from New Zealand. > I think the real problem is that What? I think ya forgot a line <grin> > Europe________________________4071 > North America_________________3007 > South America_________________457 I think these are the real numbers that count. Why hasn't South America spoken up in disagreance with these new rules? I could only harbor a guess that it's because this is an English-speaking list. Has anyone else talked to someone from South America about this? How many did they have qualify and then attend their Nats last year? > Greetings, > Damnans Jamie The Seppo

Jamie The Seppo <moon...@hotkey.net.au> wrote: >>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Good! So you're going to quit whining about anything related to the >> cost, then, right? Since you're now aware that things cost money? > > Nope, pissing you off with my whining has become a completely new > obsession with me. At least you've admitted that you're a Troll. The first step on the road to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. > Jamie > The Seppo Kevin M. "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

X_Ze...@cox-internet.com (XZealot) wrote in message news:<607fd93.04012...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Reunion island is a part of France, and is located in indian ocean : i've meet the Prince (synesios aka john, future prince of Nice, if VEKN want to answer to his numerous e mails...) and a friend of him in Paris :there is perhaps ten or twelve players (non registered) there. Kamel Senni, Prince of Paris (France...).

Jamie The Seppo wrote: > > > No. Oceania (Australia) is not the only continent with that problem. > > > > South America and Asia have a similar problem too (see the numbers I have > > attached at the end of this message). > > Asia doesn't really have the same problem. They don't even have a > Continental Championship at all. That's exactly why they don't have the same problem. They don't have a Continental Championship because there are not enough players (or the need for one has not arisen yet). > As for Oceania, I can't see anyone > else from around the entire Pacific Islands coming here for a > tournament, when for maybe a few hundred dollars more, they can attend > the US Nats at GenCon. > > > So it seems the problem comes from a continent (Oceania) having far > > less players than Europe and North America. > > > > If Oceania has less players, then the Australian Championship should > > have less participants too. Why should it have more? Why should it be > > easier for Australian players to qualify for other Continental > > Championships? > > I concede that it will have a smaller amount. But cutting the number > of qualifiers in half doesn't mean that the number of people attending > the Nats will be halved. Note that Australia has 276 V:EKN members, i.e., approximately as many players as United Kindgom (307), Sweeden (273), Italy (277), Germany (248), Finland (222), and far less players than France (527) or Spain (924). It's amost like if Italy had its own Continental Championship >:-) So the problem comes from a not enough populated country (Australia) having its own Continental Championship? > It will be more than half. This is due to > the cutting of carpools and shared travel expenses. It will be a proportional number to your V:TES population. > > The current system is meant to encourage participation. > > [...] > > Australia does not have the problem that Europe and the US have, where > their Nats are getting mauled with too many players. You need to promote V:TES in Australia :-) > We also have the problem with our "Oceania" tournament being truely > just Australian. We have just as good a chance of seeing players from > Perth as we do seeing some from New Zealand. How many players do you thin the Oceania Championship should have and why? > > I think the real problem is that > > What? I think ya forgot a line <grin> Yes, I did :-) I forgot to delete it :) > > Europe________________________4071 > > North America_________________3007 > > South America_________________457 > > I think these are the real numbers that count. Why hasn't South > America spoken up in disagreance with these new rules? I could only > harbor a guess that it's because this is an English-speaking list. > Has anyone else talked to someone from South America about this? How > many did they have qualify and then attend their Nats last year? I don't know :-) But you are missing the point. The point is that some people wanted to have their own Continental Championship (such as Australians, a couple of years ago, or South Americans), but they did not have "enough" V:TES population to have a big Continental Championship. Who says a Continental Championship must be a tournament with lots of participants (by default)? Greetings, Damnans

> That's exactly why they don't have the same problem. They don't have > a Continental Championship because there are not enough players (or > the need for one has not arisen yet). And if they did get enough people, I would hope that they wouldn't have to go by such these strict rulings for qualifing, and get rules that support and suit their particular country/continent. > Note that Australia has 276 V:EKN members, i.e., approximately as many > players as United Kindgom (307), Sweeden (273), Italy (277), Germany (248), > Finland (222), and far less players than France (527) or Spain (924). Australia is also larger in size, and it's cities are not as close to each other. > It's amost like if Italy had its own Continental Championship >:-) If Italy became the size of Australia or the USA, fine on them! > So the problem comes from a not enough populated country (Australia) > having its own Continental Championship? Not just enough population, but spread out. My wife explains the distances and travel difficulties in another email. > It will be a proportional number to your V:TES population. Made by the proportional standards of other countries, whose population and diversities are different. > You need to promote V:TES in Australia :-) That's what we're trying to do! > How many players do you thin the Oceania Championship should have and > why? It's not Oceania. But I think around 45. This is averaging 5 people from each city, and 5 more for the last chance qualifier. > I don't know :-) But you are missing the point. > > The point is that some people wanted to have their own Continental > Championship (such as Australians, a couple of years ago, or > South Americans), but they did not have "enough" V:TES population to > have a big Continental Championship. They could still have had a National tournament, as we have been having. > Who says a Continental Championship must be a tournament with lots > of participants (by default)? Not by default. They earned their qualifing. And it still all just boils down to this: 5 people. 5 people in the Finals. I go to the Nats to try my best at getting in the Finals. I play for fun, but my goal is to get into the Final round. If I wanted to be a jerk, I'd say sure! Cut down the number of people who can get in, as that means I have a better chance of getting into the Finals! But I play for fun, I play THIS GAME for the Social Atmosphere it brings, and if I'm at the Nats for this, I don't want it to be the same people year after year because they can afford to make it. > Greetings, > Damnans Adios, Jamie The Seppo

In message <32a7a630.04012...@posting.google.com>, moon...@hotkey.net.au (Jamie The Seppo) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> I'm yet to be convinced that changing the qualifying rules in Australia >> has made it unuseful to Australian V:TES players. There are a lot of >> things which need to be answered here before I'll even REMOTELY be >> convinced -- Jamie keeps refusing to answer those, instead embarking on >> rants about how Australia is big and it's hard to travel from place to >> place and sometimes expensive. To this I say: Well, no shit. Big >> countries are like that. > >What needs to be answered? How does less qualifiers mean less people >can afford to go? I've tried explaining that to you, but you haven't >been seeing it. That's because you haven't been thinking it through all the way -- you've been thinking about it from your whinecentric view. The problems you complain of are easily soluble, given the correct mindset. It is up to you to obtain that mindset, not up to us to change the rules to suit your twisted one. >> >As I understand it, the change to the 25% rule (and the omission of >> >already-qualified players in calculations) is intended both to increase >> >the number of qualifying spots for large tournaments (eg the 170-player >> >last-chance European qualifier last year) and to slightly decrease the >> >number of spots from 50% for small tournaments (since it seems to have >> >been seen as "too easy" with the "count already-qualified players" >> >method that was in use last year). >> >> That is what I understand as well. > >So this is the reason. Right. In here lies another problem. We will >most likely NEVER have more then 100 people at a Nats. Our Qualifiers First: You only require 44 people to have 11 qualifying spots. Second: We're talking about qualifiers, not the Nationals. >have all been below 35 attendees, with most numbering 15 or less. I >believe we only had 2 qualifers of the 7 with more then 20, and that's >including the last chance qualifier. Then your number of total qualifiers will slightly decrease. I direct you to Damnans' post comparing the number of players in America v. Europe v. Australia, and some information thereof. >And then there is the game itself. Of all the CCGs out there, it is >one of the few that actively promotes a social aspect of the game. >Hell, it's pracitically it's trademark! How can we promote this game >as a social game in Australia, when only the same 20 people who can >afford to show up or live in the city it's beheld show up? It's not a >promotional gimick, it's an elist click! This paragraph is a bunch of horseshit, frankly. If it really were an elitist clique, we would only see you complaining if you weren't "in". But it's not an elitist clique. The qualifiers are completely open. Show up, play a deck, qualify with it, attend the Nationals. You can't get any more open than that, and you know perfectly well that the rules were not designed to Screw Australia(tm). >> I'm not entirely certain that the objective in reducing the number of >> players is to produce a "more competitive" environment, per se. I >> believe that all we know is that its objective is to give more spaces to >> places with more people, and less weight to places with fewer. > >And here's another difference with this idea for Australia. We're the >only continent with only 8 or 9 cities that can have a tournament with >more then 4 people. America has 8 or 9 cities per region. Europe has >more countries, so they can have more qualifiers. Australia doesn't >have this. As had been said before, 50 to our Nats compared to ones >with 170?! How does this even compare? We don't have an >over-population problem at our Nats, we have an UNDERpopulation >problem. I refer you to Damnans' post, where it's pointed out that perhaps you don't have enough players to properly support a Continental Championship in the first place. I think that a CC is fine, but if it happens to have only 50 players, then so be it. 50 players is still quite a bit. >> Jamie has stated to me in the past that he has no compunction about >> attempting to get something for nothing, whether or not it's the RIGHT >> thing to do, and if he has to whine to get his way, so be it. As such, >> I feel somewhat compelled to put a wrench in the works, especially when >> I do not trust his motives. > >Say what?!?! Where do I know you from? >My motives are not singular to me. The lists here in Australia are >all abuzz with complaints about this new system. The lurkers support you in email, right? I'm sure the Australians *AREN'T* happy about it. But this doesn't change the fact that letting more than half of the qualifier-attendees qualify really makes it mostly meaningless to have qualifiers in the first place. This will likely affect my home city. Due to the nature of Atlanta, we have trouble even finding players who play the game, much less who are willing to learn a new game. Very "metro" town, very spread out, almost NO gaming stores... absolutely nothing like what I see when I travel, sadly. It's a cross we have to bear, and instead of bitching that Atlanta should get more people qualified, I can try to SOLVE the problem... which I do. I can travel to other qualifiers (12-hour drive to DC last year, flight to Boston last year) as need be. >You are right about one thing... I'll whine to get my way. But only >when's it my last or only option. This isn't a whine. This is a >serious complaint. No, this is an attempt to get something you don't deserve, with only the flimsiest of reasons backing it up. I repeat: I am completely against making any special exceptions for Australia, under any circumstances whatsoever. You may note that I posted a suggestion in another thread; if there is actually a problem with the smaller qualifiers, a fix should be in place that is suitable for ALL countries, not making special exceptions for one. Australia's geography had absolutely no bearing on my suggestion. Australia's airfares had absolutely no bearing on my suggestion. Jamie's whining had absolutely no bearing on my suggestion. What DID have bearing on my suggestion was my sudden realization that a final table where only some of the people at it can qualify, and others cannot, will lead to a TERRIBLE play environment, with the game itself sacrificed for the qualifier spots. >everyone else does. But this, this isn't fair, this is unpromotional >for the players of Australia, and it's being made by people who don't >understand the problems players are facing in Australia. "This isn't fair?" Cry me a fucking river already. >THIS ISN'T A WHINE, THIS IS NATIONAL PRIDE!!!! National pride, my left testicle. This is just bitching. Again, you know perfectly well that VEKN and White Wolf did not sit down and say "Hey, let's give Australia the big hairy one!" >> >played in an atlanta qualifier that qualified all but two of the sixteen >> >attendees, once >> >> Yes, this would be yet ANOTHER example of why I'm on the side of making >> this change. Too many people qualify at the smaller tournaments. =) > >I have no idea how that could've bloody have happened. Please >explain. But otherwise, I cannot see this ever happening in >Australia. If anything, all we have ARE small tournaments If you understand how the old qualifying system worked, and consider that we often have travelers attend our qualifiers from out of town (occasionally travelers who have qualified elsewhere), it should be blatantly obvious. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <32a7a630.04012...@posting.google.com>, moon...@hotkey.net.au (Jamie The Seppo) mumbled something about: >> STUFF COSTS MONEY. Job. Better Job. Save Up. > >As said someone said later in this thread, it's not the money, it's >priorities. I have 2 kids and a mortgage. I'm about to re-start >school full-time. I have the money to go, but I can think of many >other things to spend in on when I only have a smaller chance to >qualify. i.e. feed the kids or have a chance to qualify. Being >actually human, I choose the first. Then the problem is solved, right? OK. Subject closed. Or are you not on board with the realization that sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too? If you're not, feel free to continue blubbering until you realize it. >> Jamie, in case you haven't noticed, I have absolutely no sympathy for >> the "waaaah, I can't afford it" bandwagon. Plus, you still haven't >> explained why the X number of people who qualify from your city can't >> band together, split the costs of the trip, and have done with it THAT >> way. > >Salem said it best. 2 People qualify, the trip would cost $80. I can >afford $40, but not $80. The other person can't go, so I can't go. >Salem better worded what I've been trying to say. And I countered Salem's argument long ago. You seem to be under the impression that people are going to come to play, and take up qualifying spots, when they KNOW they won't be able to attend. And you haven't explained why it's so hard to save up the extra $40 umpteen months in advance, before most of the qualifiers have even HAPPENED yet. I just don't get it. If it's important enough to make this much fuss over, maybe it's important enough to take care of on Jamie's end, instead of trying to get exceptions made because Jamie wants a free lunch? >> And then all those qualified players get to play in all the other >> championships, having qualified under easier conditions than everyone >> else? No, Jamie, I don't think so. There ain't no free lunch. You >> have to tough it out just like everyone else. Same game, same rules. >> Accidents of geography are something you just have to deal with, and the >> geography isn't that much different in the first place. > >Accidents?!?! Holy shit, a whirling teleportational vortex of doom, >I've landed in BFE Australia! Now where the fuck am I gonna game??? >I might as well just go back to the states so I can game easier. >Sure, pick up my bags, leave the wife and kids, move back in with my >parents, just for a game that doesn't pay. Riiiiiight... Accident of geography, yes. It's not your fault you live where you do, but where you live just happens to be a poor environment for Continental Championships. Well, that's a darn shame, Jamie, but let's be realistic, shall we? The geography isn't THAT much different, and sometimes things just don't work out the way we want them to. In this case, because of that ACCIDENT OF GEOGRAPHY, one of your LUXURY SPARE TIME AMUSEMENTS is going to be more difficult for you to arrange for. Of course, we could also make it unfair for everyone ELSE who plays in a Continental Championship by making special rules for Australia, but that idea is ass in the first place. And I'm not even going to comment on that last sentence other than to say I believe that it explains your personality ALL too well. >What I'm asking for is fairness and equality. All men maybe created And that is EXACTLY what you are getting. Fairness and Equality. The rules are the same for you as for everyone else. How much more equal do you want it to be? Please don't answer, we already know. >> Don't like it? Play weenie dominate Anarch Revolt. Good odds of >> qualifying. Low odds of fun during the qualifier, but hey, what's >> important to you, right? > >And what happens if everyone gets the same bloomin' idea? I want to >qualify because I play better, not play a better deck at cheese. Deliberate self-handicapping is not conducive to qualifying. So now we are supposed to also make an exception to the rules that says "Top 25% players qualify who aren't playing cheese?" No, Jamie, again, let us go back to blue-sky land. In blue-sky land, sometimes you have to take some of the "fun" out of your decks to win. Bureaucratic Overload is a card I really like. It's fun to watch political actions get a wedgie. But in almost all decks, it's just not worth using. As much fun as it is, I keep my eye on the prize (Qualifying) and remove the BO, replacing it with a Pentex Subversion or intercept location or Dreams or whatever is appropriate. >> Until you got kicked out, you mean? > >Yes, but realization to the fact that I am devoted fan to White Wolf >allowed me back in. Not buying THAT for a moment. >It ALSO happened to be the city of Sydney's AND the last chance >qualifier at the same time. There were more slots open because of >this. Out of the 15 or so people who tried to go for the Adelaide >qualifier, 7 qualified, 4 from Adelaide, but I was the only one who >made it! So you were an out-of-towner and made it. So what happened at the qualifier in your own city? Did anyone qualify there, thus allowing you to... hey, wait, here it comes... CARPOOL with them? If you didn't have a qualifier in your city, but you had plenty of people, what stopped you from organizing one yourself, giving you an extra option? (Don't bother answering, I already know: Too Lazy.) >> Answer the question, Jamie. What's so hard about the 3 people who >> qualified from the same city getting together and carpooling? > >Because there won't be 3 people trying to carpool! There will be only >1! Horseshit. >> Good! So you're going to quit whining about anything related to the >> cost, then, right? Since you're now aware that things cost money? > >Nope, pissing you off with my whining has become a completely new >obsession with me. I'm not surprised. Kicked out for harassment, I believe...? >If I can't afford to go because of car problems or my kids get sick, >such is life. If I can't afford to go because VEKN changed the rules, >making it harder to qualify so that more people can attend (therefore, >increasing the cost of a carpool), because they aren't taking into >consideration that not all countries are the same, then I have >problem. Well, then you sure do have a problem, Jamie. Looks like you've definitely got the old problem there. Yep, that looks like a big old Jamie Problem. Let us know when you have fully exhausted Jamie's Options to solve Jamie's Problem. >> Do some fucking work on your own, Jamie. I'm not here to spoon-feed >> your lazy ass. Get it in gear, get some emails sent, and put some >> EFFORT into it. You are nothing but a whiny, freeloading sonofabitch, >> and I'm really tired of seeing your pissing and moaning EVERY time >> something doesn't go exactly as you had hoped. > >If you're tired of seeing it, why reply? Anyone with brains would >have figured out that argueing with me only drives me more to it. *chuckle* I believe you quite misunderstand my intentions. It's much more to my benefit if you keep responding. >> Atlanta = East Coast. >> Indianapolis = East Coast (ish). >> >> Seattle = West Coast. >> California = West Coast. >> >> Thus endeth the basic geography lesson. > >And don't forget Portland and Olympia, and California isn't a city, >it's the state with the highest population. But it is on the West Coast, right? I don't see any reference to California being a city, so I'll assume you're just an illiterate bastard and have done with it. >Perth, the West Cost of Australia. That's it. There is NOTHING else >on the West Coast! That is the difference between the states and >Australia! One city with less then 2 million people, is a 24 hour >drive to the nearest city of over 100,000 people. Anchorage doesn't >have it this bad! I dunno, it's a pretty miserable drive from Anchorage to anywhere. But I guess it just sucks to be Perth, much like it sucks to be Anchorage and be faced with the prospect of coming to Indianapolis (more than a 24 hour drive, FYI). How about Hawaii? THAT's a real bitch -- no carpool option even available! >> Accidents of geography matter why? Oh, that's right, not at all. >> Hey, I have an idea! Hold your Championships somewhere more >> centralized! What a freakin' concept, huh? > >WE CAN'T!!! JEEZ!!! The next nearest city is Adelaide or Alice >Springs. There are no players in Alice Springs! It has less then >400,000 people living it, and it's nothing but a tourist trap! 80% of >the VTES playing population is on the East Coast. Can't you get it >through you're freaking mind that this place is DIFFERENT!!! What a >concept! A place that isn't like America!!! Then your Championships should be on the East Coast, and the people on the West Coast are just out of luck, honestly. Again, we're into accidents of geography. If it becomes important enough to them, they will move to the East Coast -- and if things are really the way you say they are (knowing you, this is still only a 50/50 chance), then they have plenty more reasons to get close to civilization than V:TES. If I buy a house 2 hours from metro Atlanta, I don't have a right to complain about the commute, or that there's not the same stuff out near me and easy to get to. >> Not our problem. Your people don't show, figure out a way to get them >> to show. > >Here's one. We change the VEKN Championship tournament qualifing >rules to suit the country they are being held in. Thus creating multiple different Continental Championships, and making it completely unfair for anyone to play in anyone else's CC. Not incidentally, it also demeans the value of a qualifying position in the "excepted" countries -- the argument can be made that "well, you wouldn't even have QUALIFIED if you'd played anywhere but bumblefuck." >> It's not that much different. It's just as much of a pain in the ass to >> travel cross-country. Prices are slightly different. > >Hell No! It is different over here. In the states: Oh wow! A No, really, it sucks ass over here too. I guess I don't distinguish between "sucking ass mightily" and "sucking ass unbelievably" -- they're both options I don't put in my top 5. >a tree or a dead kangaroo! And I'm not fucking kidding! And the >states doesn't have Road Trains that can knock cars off the side of >the road. And if you don't know what a Road Train is, it's because >you are either in a different country and don't have them, or you >haven't watched "Race for the Sun". Now, see, you bring up this Train thing. What's the Train? Is it possible that you could purchase a Rail Ticket to travel cross-country? Is there an equivalent of Amtrak or Greyhound in Australia? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. >> Again, deal with it. > >No, you deal with my legitmate complaints about the system. Let me know when you come up with any. >> Uh, yeah, I do. $700 is pocket change compared to $1600. >> What is WRONG with you, boy? Do you not have a basic concept of math? > >What is wrong with you?!?! It sure is hell ain't poverty!!! $50 It's a hell of a lot easier for me to set aside $700 than it is $1600. More than twice as easy, in fact. It's also a lot easier for me to justify setting the $700 aside. I can use $1600 for a whole lot of things to improve the parts of my life that MATTER... guess where V:TES is included? That's right, NOT in that part. >> yada yada yada. You should try reading what *I* say for a change, and >> understanding that making special exceptions for one whiny bastard >> doesn't really fit into anyone's plans. > >You'll notice now on the rest of this thread, I'm not ONE whiney >bastard. I'm a considered player of this game with legitmate concerns >that I share with many. Does your foot taste nice? What thread are YOU reading? =) This is starting to be funny. >> >Because apparently it does matter. Is the reason they cut from 50 to >> >25% done because of possibility of attending more Championships exist? >> > Or did it happen because these are the rules of another country, and >> >it must be made uniform. >> >> Either of these might be a valid reason. > >I don't think they are, especially the last one. You think >differently. Besides some guy who lives in Sweden, but is considerate >of others, you are the only one. Now who is the one whiney bastard? Again, what thread are YOU reading? =) I think Jamie is getting himself all worked up and self-righteous, when he doesn't even realize what's happening around him. This isn't unusual. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray expounded: > Or are you not on board with the realization that sometimes you can't > have your cake and eat it too? Yuk!

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iruj10t0tg9b7p1ep...@4ax.com>... <snip a lot of notverybeautiful sentences> > >Here's one. We change the VEKN Championship tournament qualifing > >rules to suit the country they are being held in. > > Thus creating multiple different Continental Championships, and making > it completely unfair for anyone to play in anyone else's CC. Not > incidentally, it also demeans the value of a qualifying position in the > "excepted" countries -- the argument can be made that "well, you > wouldn't even have QUALIFIED if you'd played anywhere but bumblefuck." This is the only problem : If a Australian win the "Nats" and become Australian champion, among 200 players gathered into the biggest tournament of the world, i'm not sure that it would demeans his value, if he don't have to qualify to enter the tournament, as others players of the tournament. Why it's unfair for others players for others Continental championship? It's already unfair !!! Being the champion among 2000 players and being the champion among 200 players is a huge difference, already in effect. By the way, I'm sorry to tell that, but you use personal arguments, insults, sarcasms, without any start of comprehensive thinking. I' not very proud of that attitude in this newsgroup. Is it a common attitude there ???? Kamel Senni, Prince of Paris. > Now, see, you bring up this Train thing. What's the Train? Is it > possible that you could purchase a Rail Ticket to travel cross-country? > Is there an equivalent of Amtrak or Greyhound in Australia? Road Trains are huge trucks, hundreds meters long, that travel cross Australia. Its brings goods to the other side of the country (sometimes i watch TV, even i don't have one). It's very mpressive... and i'm quite sure taht they dont' accept travelers. Its take more than one kilometer to stop.

> > > If the australian princes think that the sysstem is not good for > > > theirs continents, why notlet them propose something different ? > > > > Apparently the princes (or at least one) approached LSJ and he said > > that the rules would stay. > > Might make a difference whether it was one or the whole group. Either > way it seems silly from where I'm sitting. (far far away) I am not sure if it will make a difference. Look at some discussions from the past. I suggest sitting it out for 2-3 years. -- johannes walch v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de/

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Derek Ray wrote: > Deliberate self-handicapping is not conducive to qualifying. Why couldn't you have pointed this out *last* week? David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

In message <1b066664.04013...@posting.google.com>, kamel...@yvelines.pref.gouv.fr (Kamel SENNI) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iruj10t0tg9b7p1ep...@4ax.com>... > >> Thus creating multiple different Continental Championships, and making >> it completely unfair for anyone to play in anyone else's CC. Not >> incidentally, it also demeans the value of a qualifying position in the >> "excepted" countries -- the argument can be made that "well, you >> wouldn't even have QUALIFIED if you'd played anywhere but bumblefuck." > >This is the only problem : >If a Australian win the "Nats" and become Australian champion, among >200 players gathered into the biggest tournament of the world, i'm >not sure that it would demeans his value, if he don't have to qualify >to enter the tournament, as others players of the tournament. I believe that people want a fair environment. Someone who plays regularly against difficult competition and large fields is not going to be pleased when a bunch of people from a very small corner of the country gerrymander things so that they all manage to qualify. Whether they have a right to be displeased is another story. I don't even want to see the issue come up -- I think the rules should be the same for everyone. >Why it's unfair for others players for others Continental >championship? >It's already unfair !!! >Being the champion among 2000 players and being the champion among 200 >players is a huge difference, already in effect. This is where I think it's different. A CC of 2000 players and a CC of 200 players are identical, to me -- they're the champion of however many players chose to show up for the CCs. Since both CCs came from fields of different opponents, the only way to determine which of THOSE two is better is to play against each other, or in a tournament with each other. Statistical sample's large enough and all that. >By the way, I'm sorry to tell that, but you use personal arguments, >insults, sarcasms, without any start of comprehensive thinking. Whatever, buddy. Pot, Kettle, Black -- go read closer. >I' not very proud of that attitude in this newsgroup. Well you can just be not-proud all you like. >Is it a common attitude there ???? I could ask a few things about Parisians and if certain attitudes THERE are common as well, but that is not even close to the original subject. >> Now, see, you bring up this Train thing. What's the Train? Is it >> possible that you could purchase a Rail Ticket to travel cross-country? >> Is there an equivalent of Amtrak or Greyhound in Australia? > >Road Trains are huge trucks, hundreds meters long, that travel cross >Australia. Its brings goods to the other side of the country >(sometimes i watch TV, even i don't have one). It's very mpressive... >and i'm quite sure taht they dont' accept travelers. Its take more >than one kilometer to stop. Well, the Road Train isn't an option then. But this doesn't answer the questions of whether there's an Amtrak or Greyhound equivalent. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kamel SENNI expounded: > By the way, I'm sorry to tell that, but you use personal arguments, > insults, sarcasms, without any start of comprehensive thinking. > I' not very proud of that attitude in this newsgroup. > Is it a common attitude there ???? Mostly it's just Derek :-)

Derek Ray expounded: > I believe that people want a fair environment. Someone who plays > regularly against difficult competition and large fields is not going to > be pleased when a bunch of people from a very small corner of the > country gerrymander things so that they all manage to qualify. Not that I'm all that likely to be at the EC but I would be quite happy to see someone there who qualified in Oz under easier rules. If they are prepared to make that effort I will just be pleased to see them :) That's just me but at least not everyone would mind. > This is where I think it's different. A CC of 2000 players and a CC of > 200 players are identical, to me -- they're the champion of however many > players chose to show up for the CCs. Since both CCs came from fields > of different opponents, the only way to determine which of THOSE two is > better is to play against each other, or in a tournament with each > other. You want a world championship with the finalists from all the Continentals? Wouldn't it be nice if WW could be persuaded to pay for that? ;D

> >By the way, I'm sorry to tell that, but you use personal arguments, > >insults, sarcasms, without any start of comprehensive thinking. > > Whatever, buddy. Pot, Kettle, Black -- go read closer. Listen Derek, I know you have a grudge against me (from where, I don't know), but to insult anyone else who comes up with even half a descent point and states it without insults, is completely childish. Knock me back, fine. Knock anyone else back for agreeing with me or pointing out that we need to stop the insults, and I think you lose any agruement you have. It's a social game. It's just a game. Calm down, take a deep breath before replying to any email. After you're done typing, take a 5 minute breather, and go and look back over what you typed, editing out the anger, cause, anger does not belong on this forum. > >Is it a common attitude there ???? > > I could ask a few things about Parisians and if certain attitudes THERE > are common as well, but that is not even close to the original subject. I'd like to take this time to personally apologize to anyone of a different nationality to American, for the words of this one. We're not all like this. Seriously. > >> Now, see, you bring up this Train thing. What's the Train? Is it > >> possible that you could purchase a Rail Ticket to travel cross-country? > >> Is there an equivalent of Amtrak or Greyhound in Australia? > > > >Road Trains are huge trucks, hundreds meters long, that travel cross > >Australia. Its brings goods to the other side of the country > >(sometimes i watch TV, even i don't have one). It's very mpressive... > >and i'm quite sure taht they dont' accept travelers. Its take more > >than one kilometer to stop. > > Well, the Road Train isn't an option then. But this doesn't answer the > questions of whether there's an Amtrak or Greyhound equivalent. > > -- Derek Now see, this is what I'm getting at. You don't even know this country. How can you stand by and make rules for this country when you don't know about it? You have in your quote a bit about deafness. If you can't keep an open mind, if you can't sit back and listen to all our points before you go and insult someone, then I can't see why I should listen to anything you have to say, because you are the distraction. Jamie The Seppo [ quoted text not captured ]

> That's because you haven't been thinking it through all the way -- > you've been thinking about it from your whinecentric view. Just answer this question: What is the question you want me to answer? I'm going to be skipping alot of this email, because I'm tired of the insults. It's not getting us anywhere to a realistic discussion, and even though I admitted to enjoying the fact that my supposed "whining" was infuriating you, I hate the fact that you've gone and insulted other people who did not insult you, but point out the fact that you started the insults first and now are just being negative to anything and anyone without keeping an open mind. Insult me, fine. Don't just insult anyone without provocation. > First: You only require 44 people to have 11 qualifying spots. > Second: We're talking about qualifiers, not the Nationals. My only rebutle to your 'first', is that in Australia, you won't even get 44 people if you put 2 cities (not including Sydney) together. To your 'Second', qualifiers are about the Nats. You could have the Nats without the qualifier. > Then your number of total qualifiers will slightly decrease. I direct > you to Damnans' post comparing the number of players in America v. > Europe v. Australia, and some information thereof. I pointed out my beliefs and opinion on his email. > This paragraph is a bunch of horseshit, frankly. If it really were an > elitist clique, we would only see you complaining if you weren't "in". > But it's not an elitist clique. The qualifiers are completely open. > Show up, play a deck, qualify with it, attend the Nationals. You can't > get any more open than that, and you know perfectly well that the rules > were not designed to Screw Australia(tm). If the only ones who show up to the Nats are the ones who live in the city, and the few qualify and can pay, you are making elitist. And I would be apart of that elitist clique, because I have qualified for the last two years the Nats have been held, and I have made it to the Nats, with extreme financial difficulty. I'm actually thinking not only outside the box, but also on other people besides myself. > I refer you to Damnans' post, where it's pointed out that perhaps you > don't have enough players to properly support a Continental Championship > in the first place. I think that a CC is fine, but if it happens to > have only 50 players, then so be it. 50 players is still quite a bit. 50 players would be great! But we don't get 50, and we won't even come closer if the number of spots drop, due to the fact there would be less people to have the option of carpooling to the Nats. > The lurkers support you in email, right? I'm sure the Australians > *AREN'T* happy about it. But this doesn't change the fact that letting > more than half of the qualifier-attendees qualify really makes it mostly > meaningless to have qualifiers in the first place. Lurkers? There have been people who are complaining about this right here. You really don't listen to anyone else. You are not discussing, you are not arguing, you are insulting and you are criticizing. > This will likely affect my home city. Due to the nature of Atlanta, we > have trouble even finding players who play the game, much less who are > willing to learn a new game. Very "metro" town, very spread out, almost > NO gaming stores... absolutely nothing like what I see when I travel, > sadly. It's a cross we have to bear, and instead of bitching that > Atlanta should get more people qualified, I can try to SOLVE the > problem... which I do. I can travel to other qualifiers (12-hour drive > to DC last year, flight to Boston last year) as need be. Yes, I actually know Atlanta. For 2 years, I was making the 7 hour drive up there once a month to play in there in LARPS, I've been there for one of the largest Sci-fi/RPG fanclub cons in America (Dragoncon), and for several Camarilla Regional events. I've still got friends there, some of who work for White Wolf, so much that I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement due to the fact I was going to move up there and share an apartment with WW employees. So, I know Atlanta. Do you really know Australia? And as for your "almost NO gaming stores", I just did a search over the net and found 5 comic and gaming stores in the Atlanta area. Almost none? You have 3 more then Adelaide Australia, you are the home town of the company that holds more then 25% of the RPG market, home of one of the largest cons and REM, have one of the largest and most centralized Camarilla Domains in the SE Region, and are where most of the Inner Circle live. NO wonder you are not bitching about this because you have NO FUCKING ROOM TO BITCH! BITCH! > No, this is an attempt to get something you don't deserve, with only the > flimsiest of reasons backing it up. Whatever floats your boat... > I repeat: I am completely against making any special exceptions for > Australia, under any circumstances whatsoever. You may note that I > posted a suggestion in another thread; if there is actually a problem > with the smaller qualifiers, a fix should be in place that is suitable > for ALL countries, not making special exceptions for one. I missed that thread. Even though I do see some of your arguements holding water, the way you state them makes me not even bother listening to the rest. > Australia's geography had absolutely no bearing on my suggestion. > Australia's airfares had absolutely no bearing on my suggestion. > Jamie's whining had absolutely no bearing on my suggestion. > What DID have bearing on my suggestion was my sudden realization that a > final table where only some of the people at it can qualify, and others > cannot, will lead to a TERRIBLE play environment, with the game itself > sacrificed for the qualifier spots. By Set and Gaia, the creature does have eyes. I'll take your insultive bitching about my whining and shrug it off, just for the fact that you had some realization. Or did someone else just point it out to you? > Again, you know perfectly well that VEKN and White Wolf did not sit down > and say "Hey, let's give Australia the big hairy one!" No, they did not say that. But I don't think they took the time to consider what it would do to us. Jamie The Seppo

In message <32a7a630.04013...@posting.google.com>, moon...@hotkey.net.au (Jamie The Seppo) mumbled something about: >> That's because you haven't been thinking it through all the way -- >> you've been thinking about it from your whinecentric view. > >Just answer this question: What is the question you want me to >answer? Go through my previous posts. Look for the "?" marks. Then, look at your own responses where you either: a) Snipped it entirely b) Changed the subject to something unrelated c) Repeated a previously discredited argument d) Bitched because I called you a poo-head. Replace those with actual answers. >I'm going to be skipping alot of this email, because I'm tired of the >insults. It's not getting us anywhere to a realistic discussion, and You should see it from this end. You seize every opportunity to go off on a tangent, fail to respond to the simplest questions, and constantly complain because I'm saying naughty boo-boos to you. Oh, wait, and you NEVER miss a chance to pound your "POOR LITTLE ME" drum. >was infuriating you, I hate the fact that you've gone and insulted >other people who did not insult you, but point out the fact that you >started the insults first and now are just being negative to anything >and anyone without keeping an open mind. Insult me, fine. Don't just >insult anyone without provocation. This is responses (a), (b), and (d) all combined into one, with the added improvement of: (e) Bitched because I called someone else a poo-head. Trying to demonize me won't make me wrong. >> First: You only require 44 people to have 11 qualifying spots. >> Second: We're talking about qualifiers, not the Nationals. > >My only rebutle to your 'first', is that in Australia, you won't even >get 44 people if you put 2 cities (not including Sydney) together. Perhaps you should work on local attendance, then? Whether or not I get along with some of the Parisians, I must point out that they have busted their nuts over there to get people attending their tournaments, with highly visible results. You could always do the same? >To your 'Second', qualifiers are about the Nats. You could have the >Nats without the qualifier. Reiterating my point regarding "why even have qualifiers?" >> This paragraph is a bunch of horseshit, frankly. If it really were an >> elitist clique, we would only see you complaining if you weren't "in". >> But it's not an elitist clique. The qualifiers are completely open. >> Show up, play a deck, qualify with it, attend the Nationals. You can't >> get any more open than that, and you know perfectly well that the rules >> were not designed to Screw Australia(tm). > >If the only ones who show up to the Nats are the ones who live in the >city, and the few qualify and can pay, you are making elitist. TRY to type in English. Maybe slow down and wipe some of the foam off your screen or something. The Europeans I have no problem with, because my French and Spanish are both absolutely atrocious and they all do much better in my language than I ever could in theirs. But YOU, on the other hand, have no such excuse. That said, and after deciphering your sentence fragment: This is true of ALL countries. Only a small fraction of American V:TES players play in the National Championships at GenCon. Likewise with Europe. This still doesn't make it an elitist clique. Again: Anyone is welcome to attempt to qualify. Bring a deck to a qualifier, play, and presto. >And I would be apart of that elitist clique, because I have qualified You haven't qualified yet for this year. >for the last two years the Nats have been held, and I have made it to >the Nats, with extreme financial difficulty. Couldn't pass up banging the POOR ME drum again, huh? >I'm actually thinking not only outside the box, but also on other >people besides myself. What are you talking about, man? You're not proposing any radical new ideas, you're trying to get an obvious exception made. Please confine the corporate-speak to the corporations -- I hear enough of that crap all day, and it means exactly nothing THERE, too. >50 players would be great! But we don't get 50, and we won't even >come closer if the number of spots drop, due to the fact there would >be less people to have the option of carpooling to the Nats. Addressed in numerous other messages. See (c) above. > > The lurkers support you in email, right? I'm sure the Australians >> *AREN'T* happy about it. But this doesn't change the fact that letting >> more than half of the qualifier-attendees qualify really makes it mostly >> meaningless to have qualifiers in the first place. > >Lurkers? There have been people who are complaining about this right >here. You really don't listen to anyone else. You are not >discussing, you are not arguing, you are insulting and you are >criticizing. See (b) and (d) above. Reread above paragraph and respond. >> This will likely affect my home city. Due to the nature of Atlanta, we >> have trouble even finding players who play the game, much less who are >> willing to learn a new game. Very "metro" town, very spread out, almost >> NO gaming stores... absolutely nothing like what I see when I travel, >> sadly. It's a cross we have to bear, and instead of bitching that >> Atlanta should get more people qualified, I can try to SOLVE the >> problem... which I do. I can travel to other qualifiers (12-hour drive >> to DC last year, flight to Boston last year) as need be. > >Yes, I actually know Atlanta. For 2 years, I was making the 7 hour >drive up there once a month to play in there in LARPS, I've been there >for one of the largest Sci-fi/RPG fanclub cons in America (Dragoncon), See (b) above. Reread above paragraph, last two sentences, and respond. I've lived here for well over 10 years. I've attended more DragonCons than you've even known existed, and I was a member of DAGR back when they were organizing the FIRST DragonCon. Roadtripping here occasionally is not going to make me believe that you know anything at all about Atlanta other than which way I-75N points. >And as for your "almost NO gaming stores", I just did a search over >the net and found 5 comic and gaming stores in the Atlanta area. >Almost none? You have 3 more then Adelaide Australia, you are the And how many of those are willing to stock V:TES, even when we ask them to specifically? How many of those instead prefer to stock the latest flash-in-the-pan CCG and edition of Magic, because the HIGH demand for the cutting-edge products leaves no room for anything else? How many of -those- have a large enough area to hold a tournament in? How many stores have a gaming area in the FIRST place? How many stores camouflage themselves as "comic and gaming" stores, with a heavy emphasis on "comic" and almost none whatsoever on "gaming"? Looks like you don't know Atlanta very well at all... >home town of the company that holds more then 25% of the RPG market, >home of one of the largest cons and REM, have one of the largest and >most centralized Camarilla Domains in the SE Region, and are where >most of the Inner Circle live. See (b) above. None of this has anything to do with CCGs... specifically, getting new players for same and/or trying to get them to put down the Magic cards long enough to try another game. LARPers spend all their time LARPing. The few LARPers we got to try the game were near unbearable -- they spent most of their time complaining that it didn't make sense, and that they should be able to do things THEIR way, instead of accepting the rules and that things HAD to be different in a CCG. Hey, that kind of reminds me of someone... This was a long time ago, and the game has changed a good deal since then, but we still run into the problem that LARPers generally want to spend their time and money LARPing, not CCGing. >> I repeat: I am completely against making any special exceptions for >> Australia, under any circumstances whatsoever. You may note that I >> posted a suggestion in another thread; if there is actually a problem >> with the smaller qualifiers, a fix should be in place that is suitable >> for ALL countries, not making special exceptions for one. > >I missed that thread. Even though I do see some of your arguements >holding water, the way you state them makes me not even bother >listening to the rest. This is a personal problem for you, then. Deal with it. Oh, and see (d) above. Sometimes people will say things you need to hear in a manner that is NOT sugar-coated, frosted, or otherwise excruciatingly considerate of Jamie's sensibilities. It doesn't make what they say wrong, and sometimes people like you need to be slapped upside the head in order to get them to pay attention and quit banging their POOR ME drum. You can consider this your slap. >> Australia's geography had absolutely no bearing on my suggestion. >> Australia's airfares had absolutely no bearing on my suggestion. >> Jamie's whining had absolutely no bearing on my suggestion. Please keep this in mind. You seem to have forgotten it as soon as you began writing the paragraph below. >> What DID have bearing on my suggestion was my sudden realization that a >> final table where only some of the people at it can qualify, and others >> cannot, will lead to a TERRIBLE play environment, with the game itself >> sacrificed for the qualifier spots. > >By Set and Gaia, the creature does have eyes. I'll take your You do realize that real people don't talk like this, right? =) >insultive bitching about my whining and shrug it off, just for the >fact that you had some realization. Or did someone else just point it >out to you? See (b), (c), and (d). Upset because it didn't occur to you that there might be some OTHER reasons out there besides the overused carpool excuse? Too busy banging the POOR ME drum to actually THINK about the issue? Those of us who can think about the issue with a clear head, as opposed to regional, nationalistic, and selfish bias... often come up with these little bright ideas. Who'da thunk it? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <32a7a630.04013...@posting.google.com>, moon...@hotkey.net.au (Jamie The Seppo) mumbled something about: >It's a social game. It's just a game. Calm down, take a deep breath >before replying to any email. After you're done typing, take a 5 >minute breather, and go and look back over what you typed, editing out >the anger, cause, anger does not belong on this forum. I quote: "you have NO ROOM TO FUCKING BITCH, BITCH!!!!!!!111" That's really just hilarious, Jamie. =) Again you demonstrate why i'm delighted when you respond these days. Pot, kettle, black.. except this time to YOU. =) >> >Is it a common attitude there ???? >> >> I could ask a few things about Parisians and if certain attitudes THERE >> are common as well, but that is not even close to the original subject. > >I'd like to take this time to personally apologize to anyone of a >different nationality to American, for the words of this one. We're >not all like this. Seriously. *laugh* You're not my keeper, Jamie -- in fact, you're not even American anymore, are you? Rest assured, I'll handle my own personal image just fine. You should worry more about apologizing for yourself, since you're 100% part and parcel of this as well. >> Well, the Road Train isn't an option then. But this doesn't answer the >> questions of whether there's an Amtrak or Greyhound equivalent. >> >> -- Derek > >Now see, this is what I'm getting at. You don't even know this >country. How can you stand by and make rules for this country when >you don't know about it? You have in your quote a bit about deafness. Oh, it's real easy. Make the rules for ALL countries, and let accidents of local geography take care of themselves... because if you try to make exceptions for all countries, you rapidly end up with a pile of crap. If you make exceptions for only one country, you're being unfair to all the others. > If you can't keep an open mind, if you can't sit back and listen to >all our points before you go and insult someone, then I can't see why >I should listen to anything you have to say, because you are the >distraction. See my previous response. (B), (C), (D), and (E) again. You have ignored everything I said, changed the subject, bitched because I called you a poo head, AND complained because I called someone else a poo head. Do you wonder why I mock you so? Answer the question, Jamie. You're well aware of what Amtrak (train) and Greyhound (bus) are. Is there such an equivalent in Australia? -- Derek [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:24:07 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: [snip] >Answer the question, Jamie. You're well aware of what Amtrak (train) >and Greyhound (bus) are. Is there such an equivalent in Australia? I'm no jamie, but i'll chime in with: there are trains. i don't know if they go to perth. i know they go from melbourne to sydney, and from canberra to sydney (but not directly melbourne to canberra, which is bloody inconveinient). there are buses too. one company is called greyhound/pioneer. another is murray's. they go from capital city to capital city, but not usually to any smaller towns/cities that aren't conveiniently on the route from one capital to another. i caught a bus once from adelaide to canberra. it was horribly long. near 18hrs i think. sydney is further from adelaide than canberra is. newcastle is further still, and is the location of this year's nats. however, bus/train fare + cab/taxi fare to/from wherever you need to go once you reach the next city adds up to a lot more than a carpool trip costs. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Note that Australia has 276 V:EKN members, i.e., approximately as many > players as United Kindgom You present statement A, and follow it up with statement B: > You need to promote V:TES in Australia :-) Now check the population of Australia vs the United Kingdom [hell, check the population of Australia vs LONDON] and please retract statement B. noodleboy

> >It's a social game. It's just a game. Calm down, take a deep breath > >before replying to any email. After you're done typing, take a 5 > >minute breather, and go and look back over what you typed, editing out > >the anger, cause, anger does not belong on this forum. > > I quote: > "you have NO ROOM TO FUCKING BITCH, BITCH!!!!!!!111" > That's really just hilarious, Jamie. =) Again you demonstrate why i'm > delighted when you respond these days. Pot, kettle, black.. except this > time to YOU. =) hehe, I was laughing at it too just after I sent it off. Damn you have the bad habit of just crawling up someone's arse and makin' them say stuff they didn't mean to. You probably like it the arse too much... Anyways... > *laugh* You're not my keeper, Jamie -- in fact, you're not even > American anymore, are you? Rest assured, I'll handle my own personal > image just fine. You should worry more about apologizing for yourself, > since you're 100% part and parcel of this as well. Funny, this still looks like an American Passport. Funny, I'm getting registered for this upcoming election. Hopefully the one we elect will get it this time. > Oh, it's real easy. Make the rules for ALL countries, and let accidents > of local geography take care of themselves... because if you try to make > exceptions for all countries, you rapidly end up with a pile of crap. > If you make exceptions for only one country, you're being unfair to all > the others. Wow, so the Camarilla is a pile of crap, according to what you're saying. I'll remember that one. My bad wording, and I'll admit to it. Make the continents come up with the rules for themselves, not countries. > See my previous response. (B), (C), (D), and (E) again. A>Yes I snip. Because I delete your a) discredited your arguements previously. b) Got tired of insults/insulting over your lack of knowing this country and thinking you know what's best for it. B> I never changed the subject. I a) came up with another way of looking at it b) thought up another reason as well as the first or others. c) got tired of insults/insulting over your lack of knowing this country and thinking you know what's best for it. C> Since you are not in charge or can make rules changes, I haven't been discreted, and I have certainly discreted your claims of 'wah, Atlanta hardly has any gaming stores', as well as quite a few others, such as how long it takes to travel to another regions qualifier. I also discreted you on the fact that several people have agreed with me, that by cutting the number of qualifier positions, you're cutting the number of people that can carpool. WHICH HAS WHAT MY EMAILS HAVE BEEN ABOUT. You keep saying I don't see why, or I don't think so, yet several people have explained it to you, and you still don't get it. You're complaining about me avoiding the questions, how about you stop avoiding the answers. And I can also blow this little "fact" to you because at least one Region, the EC, is having TWO Regional qualifiers! Maryland and New Jersey!!! That's not even 5 hours!!! As you keep telling me, and it's a really lousy excuse/reasoning, if you want 2 qualifiers, "get more players". D> ok, got me on this one. "the bitcing about calling you a poo head", not the all of the above. But this is because, as others have pointed out, when you stoop to insults, no one listens to you! And as for <E>, you listed off my bitching about calling you a poo head twice. > You have ignored everything I said, changed the subject, bitched because > I called you a poo head, AND complained because I called someone else a > poo head. Do you wonder why I mock you so? Yes, I know why you mock me. You are on the losing end of an arguement that is being enforced, and seems won't change, so you actually have a pedestal to stand on for once in your miserable pathetic life that can't be toppled because the Inner Circle is too stuborn to see fairness (and't don't bitch about me saying "Fair". This is a game. Games are supposed to be fair. This isn't life. This is an escape. Life isn't fair. Games and escape are supposed to be as close as possible. Fair play is a rule in most professional sports, so don't bitch at me about my use of the word "fair") > Answer the question, Jamie. You're well aware of what Amtrak (train) > and Greyhound (bus) are. Is there such an equivalent in Australia? I did miss this one, but I did mean to answer it, but my wife had sent a post stating the problems with these. I can't seem to find the email though. Yes, we have train. It takes just as long as the bus, and is more expensive. It also does not go to all cities where the Nat have been held, like Canberra (except from Sydney, so Melbourne (Aus' 2nd largest city, Adelaide, Perth and Tas can't take 'em). And jeez, are the prices for food jacked up on it. As for buses: They can take twice or more as long to get there, and are more expensive then carpooling. And food budgets can go up, as they don't stop at large stops, but crappy road houses, where the prices are jacked because no-one with a car stops at them, but they're getting business from the bus lines that use them. Include the fact that you can't always use the toilets, they are bloody small, no walking/stretching room, no smoking, no drinking and no consuming foods on board, makes for one lousy, extended trip. > -- Derek Jamie The Seppo

> I'm no jamie, but i'll chime in with: <sniffle> butbutbut, I thought we had such a connection in Sydney! wah! <grin> > there are trains. i don't know if they go to perth. i know they go > from melbourne to sydney, and from canberra to sydney (but not > directly melbourne to canberra, which is bloody inconveinient). There is a train that runs from Sydney to Adelaide to Perth. Over 24 hours from Sydney to Adelaide, over 3 days from Sydney to Perth. > however, bus/train fare + cab/taxi fare to/from wherever you need to > go once you reach the next city adds up to a lot more than a carpool > trip costs. Man, I was lucky when I went to Sydney. I got lots of help from lots of people, otherwise I was looking at about $20 easily on cabs/public transportation alone when it came from going to game to crash space over the weekend. Shit, I changed subjects again. No, wait, I didn't I added another piece of facts and info to the subject at hand. > salem Danke Salem, Piss off Derek, Jamie The Seppo

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:<bvdj9l$o2h$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>... > > > > If the australian princes think that the sysstem is not good for > > > > theirs continents, why notlet them propose something different ? > > > > > > Apparently the princes (or at least one) approached LSJ and he said > > > that the rules would stay. > > > > Might make a difference whether it was one or the whole group. Either > > way it seems silly from where I'm sitting. (far far away) > > I am not sure if it will make a difference. Look at some discussions from > the past. > I suggest sitting it out for 2-3 years. I personally have been lurking in this boat. I don't see a problem with at least giving the new system a go. Anyways, I agree with Salem, the semi-elitism for the Nat's is kinda cool. To me (and I am organiser and head judge for Aussie Nats this year), a smaller Nats just means a bigger side event...and more drinking time. Not being qualified should not be a consideration...hmm, perhaps I should be posting this to the local Princes??? -John Merton Prince of Newcastle Australia

> > Europe________________________4071 > > North America_________________3007 > > South America_________________457 > > I think these are the real numbers that count. Why hasn't South > America spoken up in disagreance with these new rules? I could only > harbor a guess that it's because this is an English-speaking list. > Has anyone else talked to someone from South America about this? How > many did they have qualify and then attend their Nats last year? Well Jamie, Yes, it has to do with language, but to be honest, I think we're on the same boat, South America and Australia. With some additional concerns, maybe, but we do have the same costs-n'-distance problems. As the recently appointed NC for Brazil, I'm reading the entire thread about the Nats worldwide, and I promise to voice out some tidbits about our situation as soon as I've finished reading all posts. Just for now, i can say I really understand your concern *and* Derek Ray's "this is how it is" approach. Let's say I'm really busy finding out how to manage our costs problems etc. to bother that much about the new qualifying system. We don't even have a real, well-managed National yet. cheers! the_capuchin, a.k.a. Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo, now NC for Brazil

TOP TEN countries in numbers of players, provided by Damnans: > United States___2240 North America > Spain___________924 Europe > Canada__________686 North America > France__________527 Europe > Brazil__________370 South America > United Kingdom__307 Europe > Sweden__________273 Europe > Australia_______276 Oceania > Italy___________277 Europe > Germany_________248 Europe I'm really surprised about this. I knew we had more registered players in Brazil than one should expect, but I didn't knew we surpassed UK, Sweden, Italy etc. But just to clarify some things about the Brazilian case (since most South American players are from here): - I can safely say that more than 1/3 of our 370 players are located in two major areas, Sao Paulo and Rio. That's 20 and 10 million people cities with many advantages to promote the game if compared to rest of the country (better wages, distribution, more stores etc.) - This is a very large country, comprising a big portion of the whole continent. Driving from some specific domains to the most distant ones require a two-DAYS trip or even more if you're going on bus. So, even carpooling isn't an option. if one wants to attend a Nats or a Continental Championship here, he must be able to pay for an airplane ticket. Other factors add to that: - most VTES players I know, at least on Sao Paulo and Curitiba (where I've played thus far), are regular professionals with their jobs. Only a few are still at college. This means two things: first, most players can't afford to leave their jobs for three or four days to travel and attend a tournament, unless it's held on holidays; second, VTES is a little too expensive hobby for us Brazilians. Maybe it isn't a fair picture of the whole country (it's easier for me to know more about Atlanta scene than, let's say, the Fortaleza metagame, because I've never traveled to either but at least Atlanta players show up on this forum), but AFAIK, you need to be an established individual to even consider buying himself more than a few starters around here. Thus, I believe many of these 370 registered players are occasional ones, who started buying VTES and quit the game too soon. So, if one looks at it closer, it seems that costs and distance are valid issues for us, but personal priorities are of major concern too. So I can understand Jamie's "whinings" since we have the very same problems, but Derek is right in one thing: changing the rules of the qualifying system won't help that much as it seems to. We're trying to find solutions to this, and I've even considered trying sponsorship to pay the airplane tickets for the qualified players, but it isn't that easy for a country where even M:TG was not that widespread to the 'mainstream' media until two or three years ago. How we are supposed to be able to attract sponsorship, and prove it could be profitable, when most local regular johns don't even know *what* a cardgame is? This is our situation, I believe. I accepted the "job" as the country's NC because I felt I should contribute to change that perspective, and because the game, against all odds, is getting bigger recently, so it isn't a lost cause. But Jamie, maybe the Brazilians (can't say nothing for Chile and Argentina) didn't complain as much as you about the new qualifying system because in fact it doesn't matter that much to us. We haven't had the organization and savvy to run even a single edition of a regular National Championship yet. But if I believed it would matter that much, I'd let it be discussed on the Conclave list and use the forum to debate alternative ways to run a Nats or Continental Championship. For example, do you Princes worldwide try attracting some kind of sponsorship for anything? (that includes travel and hosting) This is where I understand Derek's approach, though I don't think it was necessary to play the harsh-truth yelder. The world isn't fair, sure, but WW, V:EKN, the Princes and players worldwide do not have to hold on their breaths because of what happens here and take measures and exceptions to us. I do expect some flexibility from WW since they know we're at the same side - i.e., promoting the game - but it's just not practical to hold different systems to accomodate different realities, at least not now. If only WW had branches worldwide... But the new WoD has not hit the shelves and sold 20 million copies yet ;) This said, I expect this flame war to end as soon as possible, if not for peace, at least to leave room for debating practical solutions. cheers, the_capuchin

Jamie The Seppo wrote: > > > That's exactly why they don't have the same problem. They don't have > > a Continental Championship because there are not enough players (or > > the need for one has not arisen yet). > > And if they did get enough people, I would hope that they wouldn't > have to go by such these strict rulings for qualifing, and get rules > that support and suit their particular country/continent. And what kind of rules do you suggest? > > Note that Australia has 276 V:EKN members, i.e., approximately as many > > players as United Kindgom (307), Sweeden (273), Italy (277), Germany (248), > > Finland (222), and far less players than France (527) or Spain (924). > > Australia is also larger in size, and it's cities are not as close to > each other. Asia is larger >:) > > It's amost like if Italy had its own Continental Championship >:-) > > If Italy became the size of Australia or the USA, fine on them! So let's make the Asian Continental Championship >:-) > > So the problem comes from a not enough populated country (Australia) > > having its own Continental Championship? > > Not just enough population, but spread out. My wife explains the > distances and travel difficulties in another email. Distances are not an issue. Derek has already explained that. If you want to make it for your Continental Championship, you will do your best to do it. [...] > > You need to promote V:TES in Australia :-) > > That's what we're trying to do! Try harder ;-) since you don't have enough V:TES population for a crowded AC. > > How many players do you thin the Oceania Championship should have and > > why? > > It's not Oceania. But I think around 45. This is averaging 5 people > from each city, and 5 more for the last chance qualifier. So let's wait and see how many players will attend to this year's Australian Championship for further analysis. But anyway, I think the number will be a reflection of the number of V:TES players in Australia, which is a fair thing. > > I don't know :-) But you are missing the point. > > > > The point is that some people wanted to have their own Continental > > Championship (such as Australians, a couple of years ago, or > > South Americans), but they did not have "enough" V:TES population to > > have a big Continental Championship. > > They could still have had a National tournament, as we have been > having. Sure, why not, but those CC's should be governed by the same rules as the NAC or the EC. A Continental Championship is a "serious" tourmament. > > Who says a Continental Championship must be a tournament with lots > > of participants (by default)? > > Not by default. They earned their qualifing. And it still all just > boils down to this: 5 people. 5 people in the Finals. I go to the > Nats to try my best at getting in the Finals. I play for fun, but my > goal is to get into the Final round. If I wanted to be a jerk, I'd > say sure! Cut down the number of people who can get in, as that means > I have a better chance of getting into the Finals! But I play for > fun, I play THIS GAME for the Social Atmosphere it brings, and if I'm > at the Nats for this, I don't want it to be the same people year after > year because they can afford to make it. I see. It's normal that you are tired of seeing the same people year after year, since your V:TES population is very low >:-) Greetings, Damnans

noodleboy wrote: > > > Note that Australia has 276 V:EKN members, i.e., approximately as many > > players as United Kindgom > > You present statement A, and follow it up with statement B: > > > You need to promote V:TES in Australia :-) > > Now check the population of Australia vs the United Kingdom [hell, > check the population of Australia vs LONDON] Done. Australia = ca. 20 million people. UK = ca. 60 million people. > and please retract statement B. Why?. I did not say anythong wrong. Is it a lie that Australia has as many players as the countries I mentioned?. Greetings, Damnans

> Why?. I did not say anythong wrong. Is it a lie that Australia has as > many players as the countries I mentioned?. No. But considering the UK has 3 times the population Australia does, and that Oz only have 30 less players on it's VEKN database, some would say we're doing quite well on the promotional front. A lot of people work very hard to promote the game down here, chief. n

> > I am not sure if it will make a difference. Look at some discussions from > > the past. > > I suggest sitting it out for 2-3 years. > > I personally have been lurking in this boat. I was wondering why it was leaning a bit portside for no obvious reason. <grin> > I don't see a problem with at least giving the new system a go. > Anyways, I agree with Salem, the semi-elitism for the Nat's is kinda > cool. <sigh> Might as well... I'm losing my breath and nothing from the heads-on-high, is making me think to give up, give it a go, and if doesn't work, scream bloody murder. If it doesn't work out, if those mostly those who do show up are people from the city it's being held at and a few from the closest cities, would you be willing to go back to the old system? And the problem I have with this semi-elitism is that would be only for those who live in the city (or just the east coast in general) or can afford to travel, not the best players from around the country. > To me (and I am organiser and head judge for Aussie Nats this year), a > smaller Nats just means a bigger side event...and more drinking time. > Not being qualified should not be a consideration...hmm, perhaps I > should be posting this to the local Princes??? Considering the fact that most of the outtatowners showed up after the qualifiers, and quite a few left immediately after the Nats (some didn't even stay for the Final rounds if people in their car didn't qualify), I can't see it being that much bigger. And it is a consideration, because why would most people with a limited budget or family responsibilities, bother to go to another city far away and costly, when they have VTES playing in their own town? > -John Merton > Prince of Newcastle > Australia Jamie The Seppo

> Anyways, I agree with Salem, the semi-elitism for the Nat's is kinda > cool. I would agree, save for the fact that the Nats are usually the only time any of the Oz crew get to see/play each other face to face. We have no other regional event [gencon, dragoncon, fluffycon, etc] where we can play/drink. However, social concerns aren't really valid in this arguement/discussion. What i think IS relevant is that this new system will reduce the amount of qualified players at the Nats - which i presume was the intention of the rules change? All cool for the States or Europe, because they get hundreds of players to their regional games. For us, when we only got 33 people to our last Nats under the older, more generous system? We'll be lucky to get 20 players this year. What kind of National game is that? Forget the Perth mob - I know those boys [used to be one of them, and yes, it is the ass end of creation], and ain't none of them dragging their asses all the way across the country to play a game of jyhad. Take 20+ folks off our list of potentials right there. The Adelaide community also face tyranny of distance and financial problems - of the players there, I would guess 75% lack the means to make the next nationals. Hell, last time a couple of them managed to drag themselves to Melbourne, they had to *sell off* parts of their collections to afford the trip home. Admirable, but not a trick you can repeat very often. Realistically, we're looking at East Coasters being able to make the nats - a few exceptions aside - which makes the picture bleak. The 270+ on the VEKN database isn't really an accurate tally of potential Oz Nats attendees. However, I expect no exceptions to be made. WW's policy has been and always will be US-centric. Makes financial sense, given the main base for their sales is in the US and despite WW's claims that this game is "not about the money". noods

On 2 Feb 2004 17:49:42 -0800, moon...@hotkey.net.au (Jamie The Seppo) scrawled: [snip] >> To me (and I am organiser and head judge for Aussie Nats this year), a >> smaller Nats just means a bigger side event...and more drinking time. >> Not being qualified should not be a consideration...hmm, perhaps I >> should be posting this to the local Princes??? > >Considering the fact that most of the outtatowners showed up after the >qualifiers, and quite a few left immediately after the Nats (some >didn't even stay for the Final rounds if people in their car didn't >qualify), I can't see it being that much bigger. And it is a >consideration, because why would most people with a limited budget or >family responsibilities, bother to go to another city far away and >costly, when they have VTES playing in their own town? the situation might be a bit different this year. the Ausnats2003 were on sunday, and a lot of people had to work monday. this year the nats are also on sunday, but the monday is a public holiday for non-Qld people. this could mean people would be willing to stay late sunday night drinking and vtesing, and then do their drive-home on monday. hopefully. i know it's my plan, at least (well, minus the drinking part). [ quoted text not captured ]

On 2 Feb 2004 17:57:43 -0800, nood...@iprimus.net.au (noodleboy) scrawled: >> Anyways, I agree with Salem, the semi-elitism for the Nat's is kinda >> cool. > > >I would agree, save for the fact that the Nats are usually the only >time any of the Oz crew get to see/play each other face to face. We >have no other regional event [gencon, dragoncon, fluffycon, etc] where >we can play/drink. However, social concerns aren't really valid in >this arguement/discussion. > >What i think IS relevant is that this new system will reduce the >amount of qualified players at the Nats - which i presume was the >intention of the rules change? i think it was to _increase_ the number of people who qualified in the big euro-qualifiers. they were getting upset at drawing 200+ people, and only 10 qualifiing. which is a legit concern. i think the new system could work globally if you just added derek's 'all finalists qualify at a qualifier', and a 'less than 2 concurrent tables unqualiferizes your event' rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I have no doubt ;-) But the fact is that V:TES still needs promotion in Australia, if you want to have a 45+ player Continental Championship. Perhaps you should find other ways to promote this game. Greetings, Damnans PS: Note that last year's UK Qualifier had 20 participants ;-) i.e., more players than last year's Australian Championship.

salem expounded: > i think the new system could work globally if you just added derek's > 'all finalists qualify at a qualifier', and a 'less than 2 concurrent > tables unqualiferizes your event' rule. I'd rather see 1) 25% but 2) All finalists qualify but 3) no more than 50% can qualify. (if less than 10 people are present then only 50% of those can qualify but from 10-20 players you still get all finalists in; very similar to the suggestion above but at least people will have some chance of qualifying if they turn up to a qualifier hoping to do so: not their fault if no one else turns up).

On 2 Feb 2004, noodleboy wrote: > However, I expect no exceptions to be made. WW's policy has been and > always will be US-centric. I think you'll always have that tendency, given that's where WW is located. I was, however, under the impression that the qualifier rules were changed more for the benefit of Europe (who last year had some gigantic qualifiers that still only qualified 10 players). The US qualifier that I went to a couple of weeks ago qualified 13 players (25%) instead of 10 like they would've last year. Not a huge change there, although significant for those in the 11, 12 and 13 seats. > Makes financial sense, given the main base > for their sales is in the US and despite WW's claims that this game is > "not about the money". They make that claim? That would surprise me. WW is a business, aren't they? Matt Morgan

> > Makes financial sense, given the main base > > for their sales is in the US and despite WW's claims that this game is > > "not about the money". > > They make that claim? That would surprise me. WW is a business, aren't > they? Yeah, I've heard the claim bandied about many a time on this here forum. And yes, I was surprised too, in the brief moment that lay between "reading statement" and "bullshit detector going off". noods

In message <32a7a630.04020...@posting.google.com>, moon...@hotkey.net.au (Jamie The Seppo) mumbled something about: >> *laugh* You're not my keeper, Jamie -- in fact, you're not even >> American anymore, are you? Rest assured, I'll handle my own personal >> image just fine. You should worry more about apologizing for yourself, >> since you're 100% part and parcel of this as well. > >Funny, this still looks like an American Passport. Funny, I'm getting >registered for this upcoming election. Hopefully the one we elect >will get it this time. Well, no matter what your passport and citizenship say, Jamie, you're not an American by my lights. Real Americans don't get married just so they can stay in a country. >> Oh, it's real easy. Make the rules for ALL countries, and let accidents >> of local geography take care of themselves... because if you try to make >> exceptions for all countries, you rapidly end up with a pile of crap. >> If you make exceptions for only one country, you're being unfair to all >> the others. > >Wow, so the Camarilla is a pile of crap, according to what you're >saying. I'll remember that one. You REALLY want my opinion on that one? >> See my previous response. (B), (C), (D), and (E) again. > >A>Yes I snip. Because I delete your > a) discredited your arguements previously. You haven't discredited a thing. I can say "I WIN!" too, you know. >You're complaining about me avoiding the questions, how about you stop >avoiding the answers. And I can also blow this little "fact" to you How about you read the responses I give to your "answers", and then come up with responses of your own that take mine into consideration? >because at least one Region, the EC, is having TWO Regional >qualifiers! Maryland and New Jersey!!! That's not even 5 hours!!! >As you keep telling me, and it's a really lousy excuse/reasoning, if >you want 2 qualifiers, "get more players". Get more players, Jamie. I just ain't got no sympathy here for ya. What's stopping you from organizing two qualifiers in the same region? >> You have ignored everything I said, changed the subject, bitched because >> I called you a poo head, AND complained because I called someone else a >> poo head. Do you wonder why I mock you so? > >Yes, I know why you mock me. You are on the losing end of an >arguement that is being enforced, and seems won't change, so you So wait, I'm losing, yet it's not changing, but that's what I'm advocating... *smirk* =) >pathetic life that can't be toppled because the Inner Circle is too >stuborn to see fairness (and't don't bitch about me saying "Fair". >This is a game. Games are supposed to be fair. This isn't life. Yeah. And by golly, *while we're playing the game*, it is as fair as LSJ and the Rules Team can make it. They have busted their nuts to do so, and done a pretty good job. In the meantime, life isn't fair. Wake up, son! It's morning! There's only so much fair you can legislate, and LSJ and the Rules Team sure can't make a ruling that says "Perth is closer to Adelaide than it is", or "Seattle is closer to Indianapolis than it is". Hence, life is not fair. This is an instance where life irrevocably impinges on the game; fortunately, it happens outside the game, causing the game to remain... you guessed it... fair. *smirk* >This is an escape. Life isn't fair. Glad you agree with me. >> Answer the question, Jamie. You're well aware of what Amtrak (train) >> and Greyhound (bus) are. Is there such an equivalent in Australia? > > Yes, we have train. It takes just as long as the bus, and is more >expensive. It also does not go to all cities where the Nat have been How expensive EXACTLY is the train? Why would it take as long as the bus? It goes faster and stops less often. Does it stay stopped for overly long periods of time, and that's why? Can you drive a short distance to a city which DOES have the train? Is it possible to hold the Nationals in a city which is a stop on the train route, making it significantly more convenient for people? Would a little forethought and planning from the people who are INTIMATELY FAMILIAR with the travel difficulties in Australia possibly help in solving this problem? Nevermind that you've never, ever satisfactorily answered the question about why the 2 or 3 qualifiers you get in each city can't carpool. Bitching that "THERE WOULD BE ONLY ONE" is just not going to garner any sympathy from me -- when you're up to 12 players in a tourney, you get 3 qualifiers. Have you not done that math? I guess I did it so long ago, I just reflexively IGNORE all that bullshit coming from your mouth... >As for buses: They can take twice or more as long to get there, and OK, so buses are even more ass in Australia than in America. [ quoted text not captured ]

nood...@iprimus.net.au (noodleboy) wrote in message news:<e72ec49.04020...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] No offense, but since the forum is nicely archived on Google, care to cite examples of a WW person claiming V:teS as a whole wasn't about the money? I mean, I did a little searching, and found in the way past posts about then net-rep Tom Wylie talking about how the change from 'Jyhad' to 'Vampire' on the card backs was specifically about the money, to stimulate the sales of V:teS when it was clearly flagging behind Magic. Also found some from Steve Wieck talking about how White Wolf re-acquired the license for the game back from Wizards because WW thought it was a good business move. (In the same post, he expressed skepticism that pre-constructed starters were a good idea, specifcally because he wasn't sure there was enough demand to financially justify making them at the time.) The closest I've ever seen to a "It's not about the money" post from a WW person was a few in response to specific 'you guys only changed/added this game rule to make people have to buy more cards waaah!', like when some people were utterly convinced that the _only_ reason to have Group 1/2/3 distinction was to make money. But saying that specific rules decisions are being motivated for game balance and not financial concerns is a far cry from "V:teS is not about the money" - White Wolf has been exceedingly clear for years that the reason the game still is actively supported by the company is first and foremost that enough people still buy it. -John Flournoy

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 13:23:12 +0100, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> scrawled: >PS: Note that last year's UK Qualifier had 20 participants ;-) i.e., >more players than last year's Australian Championship. bollocks! from my own website (erm, i guess this lacks any sort of objectivity, but anyway...) Australian Championships 2003, Constructed. 34 entrants, 3+F 2002 Australian Championship, Canberra, 8th December 2002. 35 Entrants, 3+F [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:50:12 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: [snip] >What's stopping you from organizing two qualifiers in the same region? WW and VEKN. they told us 2002 had too many qualifier events (we got 35 people to the championship). 2003 had less qualifier events (by about, i think, 3 or 4) and we got 34 players to the championship. This year, they're letting us hold a 'last chance' in the same region as the championships host city's qualifier, upping the number by 1 from 2003. however, player bases have emerged in perth, hobart and a pair of places in QLD, so that should hopefully add another 4. we'll end up about the same number of qualifier events as back in 2002, but spread over a much wider area. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > > On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 13:23:12 +0100, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> > scrawled: > > >PS: Note that last year's UK Qualifier had 20 participants ;-) i.e., > >more players than last year's Australian Championship. > > bollocks! > > from my own website (erm, i guess this lacks any sort of objectivity, > but anyway...) > > Australian Championships 2003, Constructed. > 34 entrants, 3+F > > 2002 > Australian Championship, Canberra, 8th December 2002. > 35 Entrants, 3+F I am so sorry Salem, I meant "less" instead of "more" :( I already knew the Australian Championship had more participants than the UK one. I just wrote that sentence too fast ;-) It would not make any sense if my intention was to say that the number of participants was higher in the UKQ than in the AC. Greetings, Damnans

In message <0891209nl1j9bav6h...@4ax.com>, salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:50:12 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >scrawled: >[snip] >>What's stopping you from organizing two qualifiers in the same region? > >WW and VEKN. they told us 2002 had too many qualifier events (we got >35 people to the championship). 2003 had less qualifier events (by >about, i think, 3 or 4) and we got 34 players to the championship. Now we're getting somewhere. Did they explain why? (Jamie: note that direct responses to my questions earn additional direct responses, and consideration thereof. Babbling at me earns scorn.) >This year, they're letting us hold a 'last chance' in the same region >as the championships host city's qualifier, upping the number by 1 >from 2003. however, player bases have emerged in perth, hobart and a >pair of places in QLD, so that should hopefully add another 4. we'll >end up about the same number of qualifier events as back in 2002, but >spread over a much wider area. In other words, you're likely to have the same number of people or more at the championship this year, and you aren't likely to have a bunch of already-qualifieds show up and disrupt the standings... meaning that even with a slightly smaller qualifier size, you should really have no trouble finding at least one other person from your city who qualified to attend the Nationals with, since you only need an 8-person tournament to get 2 qualifying spots, 12 for 3, etc. I'm still in favor of all finalists being qualified, just to make the final not be a horrendous argument. But I'm not sure you're going in the direction you want to with this... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:41:13 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >In message <0891209nl1j9bav6h...@4ax.com>, >salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: > >>On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:50:12 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >>scrawled: >>[snip] >>>What's stopping you from organizing two qualifiers in the same region? >> >>WW and VEKN. they told us 2002 had too many qualifier events (we got >>35 people to the championship). 2003 had less qualifier events (by >>about, i think, 3 or 4) and we got 34 players to the championship. > >Now we're getting somewhere. Did they explain why? yes. apparently we 'had too many'. isn't it obvious? at a guess, i'd say it was because a few of the qualifiers got less than 2 concurrent tables (7 or less players). [snip] >In other words, you're likely to have the same number of people or more >at the championship this year, and you aren't likely to have a bunch of >already-qualifieds show up and disrupt the standings... meaning that >even with a slightly smaller qualifier size, you should really have no >trouble finding at least one other person from your city who qualified >to attend the Nationals with, since you only need an 8-person tournament >to get 2 qualifying spots, 12 for 3, etc. you need 8 previously unqualified people. should be fine for the first few qualifier events, but towards the last few it might get a bit hairy for the locals when a horde(*) of unqualified interstaters descend on them. Horde here being, you know, 2 or 3 who can get the cash together to carpool (and pool their PTOs. ;) >I'm still in favor of all finalists being qualified, just to make the >final not be a horrendous argument. But I'm not sure you're going in >the direction you want to with this... I'm not a big fan of obscuring facts that don't aid my cause. personally, i can see the new rules sending things either way: less people are willing to travel because there's less chance of qualifying. or more people wanting to travel because there's less chance of qualifying at the local event, and they want to increase their chances overall. looks like a suck-it-and-see situation to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

> No offense, but since the forum is nicely archived on Google, care to > cite examples of a WW person claiming V:teS as a whole wasn't about > the money? Nope. No offense, but I can't be bothered and if it really interests you, you can do it yourself. noods

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<lgp320pjl69atltii...@4ax.com>... > I'm not a big fan of obscuring facts that don't aid my cause. > > personally, i can see the new rules sending things either way: > less people are willing to travel because there's less chance of > qualifying. > or > more people wanting to travel because there's less chance of > qualifying at the local event, and they want to increase their chances > overall. > > looks like a suck-it-and-see situation to me. It will depend on the context (the accidents of geography...). When a qualifier have 3 times the number of players,and the same number of qualified people, or more : 9 times and the same number of qualified people, there is something unfair. When this system leads to a CC with less then 40 people, there is something bad somewhere. Problems are different between the continents. A unique system doesn't resolve different problems except one : fairness among peoples who will never meet each others. The new system is good for Europe (there is some others princes and coordinators aggree with me), and probably (but can't be sure) for US : I'm not convinced for Australia. I'm quite sure that it is bad for the development of a tournament system in Australia. You don't new auspex superior to see that autralian people thinks the same things. Perhaps there are right ? Because there are there ??? KS.

In message <lgp320pjl69atltii...@4ax.com>, salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >>>WW and VEKN. they told us 2002 had too many qualifier events (we got >>>35 people to the championship). 2003 had less qualifier events (by >>>about, i think, 3 or 4) and we got 34 players to the championship. >> >>Now we're getting somewhere. Did they explain why? > >yes. apparently we 'had too many'. isn't it obvious? I would think it'd be obvious that I was inquiring why they thought that you had "too many", frankly. >at a guess, i'd say it was because a few of the qualifiers got less >than 2 concurrent tables (7 or less players). Then I agree. You had too many qualifiers; with no incentive to even attempt traveling, people didn't bother. I would ideally like to see at least 12 people at any given tournament, certainly 12 people for a QUALIFIER for your NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS, which -are- supposed to mean something. >>already-qualifieds show up and disrupt the standings... meaning that >>even with a slightly smaller qualifier size, you should really have no >>trouble finding at least one other person from your city who qualified >>to attend the Nationals with, since you only need an 8-person tournament >>to get 2 qualifying spots, 12 for 3, etc. > >you need 8 previously unqualified people. should be fine for the first >few qualifier events, but towards the last few it might get a bit >hairy for the locals when a horde(*) of unqualified interstaters >descend on them. Someone else mentions developing a tournament scene in Australia. I like the idea of a PROPER tournament scene, ... you know, one where a bunch of people get together? To this end we really need to encourage attendance of at least 12 players at each. >Horde here being, you know, 2 or 3 who can get the cash together to >carpool (and pool their PTOs. ;) This is the bit that's self-contradictory. People won't travel for the nationals but will for the qualifiers? I know you've already seen it, so I won't belabor it to death, but keep in mind that this is one of the big objections I have to Jamie's (and in some respect, your) arguments. You can't have it both ways. >>I'm still in favor of all finalists being qualified, just to make the >>final not be a horrendous argument. But I'm not sure you're going in >>the direction you want to with this... > >I'm not a big fan of obscuring facts that don't aid my cause. True, but surely there are other facts that DO aid your cause? Right now you're just pointing out that things aren't as bad as Jamie's hysteria makes it out to be, which isn't quite the same point I was making but is darned close. >personally, i can see the new rules sending things either way: >less people are willing to travel because there's less chance of >qualifying. >or >more people wanting to travel because there's less chance of >qualifying at the local event, and they want to increase their chances >overall. > >looks like a suck-it-and-see situation to me. And that is probably the best answer overall, although again, I'm disturbed about seeing final rounds where only a few people qualify. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > And that is probably the best answer overall, although again, I'm > disturbed about seeing final rounds where only a few people qualify. There was a suggestion that only qualifier tournaments that had at least 20 players would actually be qualifiers. That is, 20 is the minimum number of players for any qualifier tournament - if you can't get 20, then the event isn't a qualifier (and no one qualifies). But that suggested limitation was not used since it would be unfair to those who travel to attend a "qualifier" to have the "qualifier" demoted to a regular tournament based on facts that cannot be known until the tournament starts. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

nood...@iprimus.net.au (noodleboy) wrote in message news:<e72ec49.04020...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Since I had already 'done it myself' prior to my last post (and stated that I'd done so) and not only failed to find what you claim but found counter-examples, I'm not going to be bothered to take that claim seriously any further. Not terribly important either way, really. > noods (Side comment: I certainly hope that WW does in fact end up listening to the complaints you Aussies have about the tourney set-up; especially since locally we're considering requesting a change to the Region set-up before next year's qualifiers as well.) -John Flournoy

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<40225E96...@white-wolf.com>... > Derek Ray wrote: > > And that is probably the best answer overall, although again, I'm > > disturbed about seeing final rounds where only a few people qualify. > > There was a suggestion that only qualifier tournaments that had > at least 20 players would actually be qualifiers. That is, 20 is the > minimum number of players for any qualifier tournament - if you > can't get 20, then the event isn't a qualifier (and no one qualifies). > > But that suggested limitation was not used since it would be unfair > to those who travel to attend a "qualifier" to have the "qualifier" > demoted to a regular tournament based on facts that cannot be known > until the tournament starts. Was that the only reason? What about the fact that not one single qualifier (except the day before) in Oz in 2003 had 20 or more people? What is the attitude towards the Oz scene? Do you think we're not trying hard enough or we're so small we don't matter? C.

In message <40225E96...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> And that is probably the best answer overall, although again, I'm >> disturbed about seeing final rounds where only a few people qualify. > >There was a suggestion that only qualifier tournaments that had >at least 20 players would actually be qualifiers. That is, 20 is the >minimum number of players for any qualifier tournament - if you >can't get 20, then the event isn't a qualifier (and no one qualifies). The below paragraph would have been my first objection. =) >But that suggested limitation was not used since it would be unfair >to those who travel to attend a "qualifier" to have the "qualifier" >demoted to a regular tournament based on facts that cannot be known >until the tournament starts. -- Derek [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Arthur wrote: > Was that the only reason? What about the fact that not one single > qualifier (except the day before) in Oz in 2003 had 20 or more people? The reason given was sufficient. > What is the attitude towards the Oz scene? Do you think we're not > trying hard enough or we're so small we don't matter? The "attitude" is toward what it means to be a qualifier in a continental championship. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 08:44:41 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >In message <lgp320pjl69atltii...@4ax.com>, >salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: > >>>>WW and VEKN. they told us 2002 had too many qualifier events (we got >>>>35 people to the championship). 2003 had less qualifier events (by >>>>about, i think, 3 or 4) and we got 34 players to the championship. >>> >>>Now we're getting somewhere. Did they explain why? >> >>yes. apparently we 'had too many'. isn't it obvious? > >I would think it'd be obvious that I was inquiring why they thought that >you had "too many", frankly. sorry. i forgot my sarcasm tags. i don't remember them elaborating on why the amount we had was considered 'too many'. it was supposed to be a light-hearted comment.....please don't flame me. ;) [snip] >I would ideally like to see at least 12 people at any given tournament, >certainly 12 people for a QUALIFIER for your NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS, >which -are- supposed to mean something. I'd _like_ to see about 64 people at any given tournament. however, i think for sanctioning or rating purposes, a tournament should have 2 tables or more (6+ players), and a qualifier 2 or more _concurrent_ tables (8+ players). >>>already-qualifieds show up and disrupt the standings... meaning that >>>even with a slightly smaller qualifier size, you should really have no >>>trouble finding at least one other person from your city who qualified >>>to attend the Nationals with, since you only need an 8-person tournament >>>to get 2 qualifying spots, 12 for 3, etc. >> >>you need 8 previously unqualified people. should be fine for the first >>few qualifier events, but towards the last few it might get a bit >>hairy for the locals when a horde(*) of unqualified interstaters >>descend on them. > >Someone else mentions developing a tournament scene in Australia. I >like the idea of a PROPER tournament scene, ... you know, one where a >bunch of people get together? To this end we really need to encourage >attendance of at least 12 players at each. sadly, rescinding 'sanctioned' status from an event that fails to get 12 people would _discourage_ people from turning up, as they'd feel that the effort of turning up and playing (which some people do claim is an effort...pff) might not be worth it for a non-sanctioned event. >>Horde here being, you know, 2 or 3 who can get the cash together to >>carpool (and pool their PTOs. ;) > >This is the bit that's self-contradictory. People won't travel for the >nationals but will for the qualifiers? I know you've already seen it, >so I won't belabor it to death, but keep in mind that this is one of the >big objections I have to Jamie's (and in some respect, your) arguments. >You can't have it both ways. unless two (or more) qualifiers are significantly closer together (geographically) than either of them are to the nationals. day trip: no problem 3 day trip: not so easy i think jaime's main point might be: no one in adelaide will want to car pool to go to newcastle. that's really a problem with the adelaide people (combined with a bit of accidental geography) more than the qualifying rules. >>>I'm still in favor of all finalists being qualified, just to make the >>>final not be a horrendous argument. But I'm not sure you're going in >>>the direction you want to with this... >> >>I'm not a big fan of obscuring facts that don't aid my cause. > >True, but surely there are other facts that DO aid your cause? what's my cause? i don't beleive i have yet to state a firm opinion one way or the other (assuming of course the discussion is about: keep australia conforming to the rest of the world's qualifier criteria, or get australia it's own set). >Right now you're just pointing out that things aren't as bad as Jamie's >hysteria makes it out to be, which isn't quite the same point I was >making but is darned close. more that i don't think there is sufficient evidence to accept jaime's hypothesis, rather than not beleiving it couldn't be true (because it might be true. but we don't know yet because qualifiers/championship haven't been held yet). >>personally, i can see the new rules sending things either way: >>less people are willing to travel because there's less chance of >>qualifying. >>or >>more people wanting to travel because there's less chance of >>qualifying at the local event, and they want to increase their chances >>overall. >> >>looks like a suck-it-and-see situation to me. > >And that is probably the best answer overall, although again, I'm >disturbed about seeing final rounds where only a few people qualify. i'm cautious, but quietly optimistic about the final round scenario. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Was that the only reason? What about the fact that not one single > > qualifier (except the day before) in Oz in 2003 had 20 or more people? > > The reason given was sufficient. I'd say more then sufficient. But include the fact the Oz qualifiers are unfortunately small, why doesn't it help along the idea of making it just even the smallest bit easier to qualify over here? Other options besides raising it back to 50%: 1) Up until a set date, say a month or two before the championship, if you can't make it to the championship you are allowed to pass on your qualifing spot to the next qualifing person. This gives time for the people running it to make the necessary changes. 2) Allow people who have previously qualified to count towards the total. This is especially good as we really don't have that many people go to other cities qualifiers. 3) Qualifiers with more then 15 people allows for at the least those in the final round of a qualifier to qualify. > > What is the attitude towards the Oz scene? Do you think we're not > > trying hard enough or we're so small we don't matter? > > The "attitude" is toward what it means to be a qualifier in a > continental championship. What exactly is that attitude supposed to be? I mean, over here in Oz, the attitude is more, uou get to meet up with players from around the country and have a ball playing hard-care tourney-style for the weekend. The attitude of this country is way more laidback then the states, and I don't see why the attitude of another country has to forcibly intrude on anothers. Jamie The Seppo