NAC 2008 Day 1

There are 57 players competing in the first round of the NAC. There are 12 players playing in a Keepers of Tradition Draft.

The Lasombra wrote: > There are 57 players competing in the first round of the NAC. ... and the top 25 will go on to Day 2.

The Lasombra schrieb: > There are 57 players competing in the first round of the NAC. > There are 12 players playing in a Keepers of Tradition Draft. > huh? KoT draft...I thought there was some delay with KoT

[ quoted text not captured ] Historically, small numbers of boosters have been available at conventions etc. slightly before the release date. The same is true of other products for other companies e.g. early copies of books or games. It's rarely just a case of getting the boosters (or other products) and shoving them out the door immediately after that. Working with warehouses and distributors can take time, some products can come earlier than you think, some might be sent in separate batches (just in case something goes wrong on the way), and so on. If the same batch of printing is also responsible for (for example) pre-release kits, those need to be created and sent on by Oscar and co. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:GeLMk.4398$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com... > The Lasombra wrote: >> There are 57 players competing in the first round of the NAC. > > ... and the top 25 will go on to Day 2. Another change to the CC format? Maybe I saw this earlier in the year and forgot. Is it just a straight "25" the way it used to be a straight "40"? Does each CC differ in this respect or are they all 25-go-to-the-second-day now? Whatever, it's probably for the better - at least for the NAC's purposes. Fred

Too bad that the european draft championship won't be KoT drafted James Coupe schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] ...and I just saw this message now at 9:30am, Mon 27 Oct. Go google groups! Jeff

On Oct 25, 9:15 pm, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > There are 12 players playing in a Keepers of Tradition Draft. Details, please spare me this unending unendurable torment from extending another minute, in which, i am sure, my very being will be seared to a smoking cinder, all life burnt out of me. please?

In article <52eaa531-adf7-426a...@l76g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Jeff Kuta <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote: > ...and I just saw this message now at 9:30am, Mon 27 Oct. > > Go google groups! Google groups has been, like, 36 hours behind all weekend. I figured it would be fixed today, but apparently not. Thus, why a good newsreader is your pal... Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

[ quoted text not captured ] Of the 25 players who advanced to day 2, only one of them didn't have a game win. Looks like the calculation was just about right to me. Matt Morgan

On Oct 27, 11:59 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > > Of the 25 players who advanced to day 2, only one of them didn't have a > game win. Looks like the calculation was just about right to me. > > Matt Morgan Hard to argue with those statistics. Hugh

hugh.angsees...@gmail.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, I think thats exactly the level that makes sense, GW to get to the second day. IIRC it was about that at the EC too the last few times. Could it not be that that is the rule 1 GW to get to day two? Would make day one interesting for sure. On an unrelated note: cool deck that won the NAC. And it has a cool name too, which is as important as winning.. Alderaan is in a lot of trouble... Ant

In article <2a915286-a49c-429f...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Anthony Coleman <Bunti...@gmail.com> wrote: > On an unrelated note: cool deck that won the NAC. And it has a cool > name too, which is as important as winning.. Alderaan is in a lot of > trouble... So just to be clear here--the exact same deck (well, except for 2 cards) won both the first day *and* second day of the NAC? And this deck used Anarch Fee Stake vote tech? Man. All my complaints about Anarch tech thrown out the window. As if millions of voices all screamed and were suddenly silenced. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter D Bakija wrote: > So just to be clear here--the exact same deck (well, except for 2 cards) > won both the first day *and* second day of the NAC? And this deck used > Anarch Fee Stake vote tech? Man. All my complaints about Anarch tech > thrown out the window. As if millions of voices all screamed and were > suddenly silenced. I think it's more like someone heard our complaints and made both Assamites and Anarchs better. Matt Morgan

> Could it not be that that is the rule 1 GW to get to day two? That wouldn't ensure some multiple of 5 players would make it to day two. 20 players is really good. 21 is about as bad as it gets table-seating wise.

[ quoted text not captured ] you know, other than 11. or 7. 21 isn't so bad. 4x4 and 1x5. sure, not many 5 player tables get played, but at least you're not playing the same players each round. however, yeah. a set 25 does make a nice pool of 5x5. Until someone has to drop. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email) "In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh FAEC, so shut up." "Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat." - James Coupe

Salem wrote: > however, yeah. a set 25 does make a nice pool of 5x5. Until someone has > to drop. If anyone drops on day 2, I'm sure it would be easy to find a body around to take xer place.

In message <4908191e$0$9247$ba62...@nova.planet.nl>, Izaak <ma...@nospam.com> writes: >> Could it not be that that is the rule 1 GW to get to day two? > >That wouldn't ensure some multiple of 5 players would make it to day two. If you want to use the game win as the major criterion, that's easily solved. Everyone with 1 game win, rounded up to the next multiple of 5. So 22 players have a game win, take the top 25. The top 26 have a game win? Take 30. For the unlikely-but-possible situations where only a few people get game wins (several players getting a game win every round, and a bunch of timeouts, for example), add a minimum number/percentage (also rounded up to the next multiple of 5). So you get a bunch of screwy games and only have 11 people qualified for day 2 out of 49 attendees. You decided in advance that at least a third must advance, which is 16.3. So you take the top 20 players. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> The Lasombra wrote: >>> There are 57 players competing in the first round of the NAC. >> >> ... and the top 25 will go on to Day 2. > > Another change to the CC format? Maybe I saw this earlier > in the year and forgot. Is it just a straight "25" the way it > used to be a straight "40"? Does each CC differ in this respect > or are they all 25-go-to-the-second-day now? I believe Oscar said that he wanted the rule to be: Day 1 > 60 players = 40 go on to Day 2 Day 1 < 60 players = 25 go on to Day 2 Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "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 Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Anthony Coleman <Bunti...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On an unrelated note: cool deck that won the NAC. And it has >> a cool name too, which is as important as winning.. Alderaan is >> in a lot of trouble... > > So just to be clear here--the exact same deck (well, except for 2 > cards) won both the first day *and* second day of the NAC? And > this deck used Anarch Fee Stake vote tech? Man. All my complaints > about Anarch tech thrown out the window. As if millions of voices all > screamed and were suddenly silenced. Your overconfidence in going-Anarch the-hard-way is your weakness. Good to see a recant, though. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> The Lasombra wrote: >>>> There are 57 players competing in the first round of the NAC. >>> >>> ... and the top 25 will go on to Day 2. >> >> Another change to the CC format? Maybe I saw this earlier >> in the year and forgot. Is it just a straight "25" the way it >> used to be a straight "40"? Does each CC differ in this respect >> or are they all 25-go-to-the-second-day now? > > I believe Oscar said that he wanted the rule to be: > > Day 1 > 60 players = 40 go on to Day 2 > Day 1 < 60 players = 25 go on to Day 2 what happens if: Day 1 = 60 players ? [ quoted text not captured ]

Salem <kell...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Day 1 > 60 players = 40 go on to Day 2 > > Day 1 < 60 players = 25 go on to Day 2 > what happens if: > Day 1 = 60 players > ? Or if, sadly, Day 1 < 25 players?

> Or if, sadly, Day 1 < 25 players? He was talking about making it a one day event if 40 or less people showed up for Day 1. And it was 60 or more for 40 players to go on, not just more than 60. But alas this year, the tournament suffered from a lack of qualified players since the same people could qualify multiple times. It's nice to know that Hugh Angseesing qualified enough times to fill a couple of tables by himself, but he can still only fill one seat at a time.

On Oct 31, 8:54 am, Bleu <bleuric...@videotron.ca> wrote: > But alas this year, the tournament suffered from a lack of qualified > players since the same people could qualify multiple times. > It's nice to know that Hugh Angseesing qualified enough times to fill > a couple of tables by himself, but he can still only fill one seat at > a time. Yeah, I really doubt that this is actually an issue. There were plenty of people qualified. They just didn't go to Montreal. I was qualified and didn't go. My buddy Dave was qualified and didn't go. Lots of people were qualified and didn't go. That happens. I'm sure plenty of people were qualified and had they all wanted to go, there would have been plenty of people at the event. Hugh (or whoever) didn't keep anyone from going by virtue of them not being qualified somehow. -Peter

On Oct 31, 3:17 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Your overconfidence in going-Anarch the-hard-way is your weakness. Hey, I know when I'm beat. And never tell me the odds! -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:6b9c659c-ad4c-4579...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com... On Oct 31, 8:54 am, Bleu <bleuric...@videotron.ca> wrote: > > It's nice to know that Hugh Angseesing qualified enough times to fill > > a couple of tables by himself, but he can still only fill one seat at > > a time. ... > Hugh (or whoever) didn't keep > anyone from going by virtue of them not being qualified somehow. Eh? Anyone who chooses can "go". You don't have to be qualified to attend a Continental Championship. If you mean, "Hugh didn't keep anyone from being qualified", that's obviously not true. Each time he qualified, he prevented someone else from qualifying. It seems like this statement is either patently false or absurdly obvious, depending on the intended meaning. Fred

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Salem wrote: >> I believe Oscar said that he wanted the rule to be: >> >> Day 1 > 60 players = 40 go on to Day 2 >> Day 1 < 60 players = 25 go on to Day 2 > > what happens if: > Day 1 = 60 players The least drunk player is DQ'd.

On Oct 31, 10:51 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Eh? Anyone who chooses can "go". You don't have to be qualified to > attend a Continental Championship. If you mean, "Hugh didn't keep anyone > from being qualified", that's obviously not true. Each time he qualified, > he prevented someone else from qualifying. It seems like this statement > is either patently false or absurdly obvious, depending on the intended > meaning. Bleu was trying to make the point that the attendance was low due to people getting to qualify multiple times. I was contradicting that point by explaining that this struck me as unlikely to have an impact, as far more people were qualified than showed up, indicating that there were likely enough people qualified to have made for a big tournament if more people chose to show up. Yes. That some folks got to qualify multiple times meant that there were fewer qualified players than total spots available. But as the total number of qualifying spots was higher than it would have been in the past (i.e. in previous years, 25% of people playing in each qualifier got to qualify. This year, 25% minimum 5 people playing in each qualifier to to qualify), it was likely a wash (how many people qualified multiple times? How many people qualified in total?) To the point that I am wildly unconvinced that allowing people to qualify multiple times had any significant impact on the attendance of the tournament. Which was Bleu's original point. That I was contradicting. -Peter

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Your overconfidence in going-Anarch the-hard-way is your weakness. > > Hey, I know when I'm beat. And never tell me the odds! Peter, I've flown from one side of this country to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange decks, but I've never seen *anything* to make me believe that there's one all-powerful Anarch-card controlling everything. 'Cause no mystical Go-Anarch card controls *my* deck's destiny. It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:26:02 -0700, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Your overconfidence in going-Anarch the-hard-way is your weakness. >> >> Hey, I know when I'm beat. And never tell me the odds! > >Peter, I've flown from one side of this country to the other, and I've >seen a lot of strange decks, but I've never seen *anything* to make me >believe that there's one all-powerful Anarch-card controlling everything. >'Cause no mystical Go-Anarch card controls *my* deck's destiny. It's all a >lot of simple tricks and nonsense. Hokey independants and overdiversified disciplines are no match for a good stealth-bleed at your side. Morgan Vening

At least for the week of nightmares and the NAC itself, the presence of all those already qualified players, including multi-qualified players, means that very few spots were left for the non-qualified to fit in. The three miniQs were won by players already qualified, so that's three less spots. And out of 32 or so players at the LCQ, only one new player qualified for the NAC. 4 qualifying events to get 1 new player in the NAC Day 1.

Bleu wrote: > At least for the week of nightmares and the NAC itself, the presence > of all those already qualified players, including multi-qualified > players, means that very few spots were left for the non-qualified to > fit in. Note that the presence of already-qualifieds did not reduce the number of spots available. The performance of some of the already-qualifieds was, however, of the level to take many of the available spots, perhaps not coincidentally.

On Nov 3, 9:41 am, Bleu <bleuric...@videotron.ca> wrote: > At least for the week of nightmares and the NAC itself, the presence > of all those already qualified players, including multi-qualified > players, means that very few spots were left for the non-qualified to > fit in. Yeah, as much as I'll argue that the new qualifier system works fine, it does strike me as wonky to have Last Chance Qualifiers at the NAC that are populated almost entierly by already qualified players (as the most of the folks who go to the NAC are going to be qualified in the first place). It strikes me as a perfectly reasonable compromise to have a LCQ at a championship be all non qualified players. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Nov 3, 9:41 am, Bleu <bleuric...@videotron.ca> wrote: >> At least for the week of nightmares and the NAC itself, the presence >> of all those already qualified players, including multi-qualified >> players, means that very few spots were left for the non-qualified to >> fit in. > > Yeah, as much as I'll argue that the new qualifier system works fine, > it does strike me as wonky to have Last Chance Qualifiers at the NAC > that are populated almost entierly by already qualified players Where "almost entirely" is broadly defined to include 60%. Of the 35 participants in the 2008 NAC LCQ, 60% were previously qualified. 40% had not yet qualified. The top 33% qualified (12 spots). All things being equal (skill, luck, etc.), then five not-yet-qualified (40% of 12) would have been expected to qualify. As it was, 2 new players qualified (the other 10 were already qualified). If it had been run with just the 14 non-qualifieds, then 5 new players would have qualified. A difference of 3 players.

[ quoted text not captured ] I am sorry for all the players' spots I took but at the beginning of the tournament, we are all on the same line. If a player cannot manage to qualify whatever qualifying rules are set (due to luck, bad seatings, whatever), he has to accept the fact that he does not deserve to play in the main event. I know that well since I didn't make it through many tournaments in the past due to my bad habit of going weak decks during qualifiers.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well the idea of having a qualifier for only those players who aren't already qualified to play seems a little absurd as qualifiers are by their nature supposed to be open to all & are supposed to provide a test. The min-qualifiers were failry balanced & gave a pretty good shot for an unqualified player to qualify (there were 2 unqualfied in the mini-qual final day 1 & 2 in day 2 and at least 2 in the Wednesday event final) I would also like to point out that on all the mini-qualifier days & initially on the LCQ day (until Oscar came up trumps with some hidden KoT) there were no other events to play in. If I wasn't able to play in these events I would have been spending $1000 on a 2 day event (where I might not even make the 2nd day). If i'm going to do trans- atlantic travels i'd rather fit in as many games as possible as well as seeing the sights. Even under the old system qualfied players still 'stole spots' if you like as we couldn't be counted for determining the maximum number of players to qualify. Mathematically the highest number of new players to qualify in the LCQ @ Montreal would have been 12, this would have only been obtained if 12 unqualified players took spots 1-12, but it is a much higher possible than the 5 who would have qualified if the LCQ only catered for the unqualifed players.

In message <09077348-a9b7-48d8...@40g2000prx.googlegroups .com>, hugh.an...@gmail.com writes: >Well the idea of having a qualifier for only those players who aren't >already qualified to play seems a little absurd as qualifiers are by >their nature supposed to be open to all & are supposed to provide a >test. Only absurd if all previous qualifiers were absurd. That's how they used to work. You had an LCQ tournament of 60 people. 25 were already qualified. The remaining 35 people fought it out for the appropriate number of places. The main problem with this format, as I understand it, is that it caused massive problems for Robyn keeping track of who had qualified. However, given that the LCQ is the day before the real tournament and by this point Robyn will have already found out / announced who's qualified, it seems not so hard to run the LCQ in the format it was run in previous years, without causing extra work. [ quoted text not captured ]

<hugh.an...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:09077348-a9b7-48d8...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com... On Nov 3, 3:24 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: ... > > It strikes me as a perfectly reasonable compromise > > to have a LCQ at a championship be all non qualified players. > > Well the idea of having a qualifier for only those players who aren't > already qualified to play seems a little absurd as qualifiers are by > their nature supposed to be open to all & are supposed to provide a > test. Huh? "By their nature"? I'm not sure what is their 'nature' that this would be inevitable conclusion. As far as I can see, they're just intended as a sort of challenge so that the CQ is a little more special than it would be if it were just some particularly large open tournament that took place at a given time and place once a year. That is, the qualification system is what differentiates a CQ from just a very large open tournament, so the championship can be seen as a particularly coveted title. Also, and probably more important to VEKN, it allows for a series of special local tournaments to be held. Having a few local tournaments that are special tournaments helps heighten interest in tournaments in general, I think. Be that as it may, I see absolutely nothing in all this which suggests a nature of requiring previously qualified entrants freedom to enter in subsequent qualifiers. You're right to say they should provide a test, but they provide a test either way so the point moot, as far as I can see. For purposes of the Continental Championships alone, I think VEKN's interest is clearly to encourage as many people to travel to the championship site and participate as possible. Does anyone question this? If not, then for these purposes, the logical thing to do would be to eliminate qualifiers altoghether and just make the CC open. However, that would subvert the importance of the championship and eliminate the status of special qualifiers which are, in and of themselves, good things. Peter's suggestion, however, is totally logical and strikes me as a very good idea. It wouldn't subvert the importance of the championship nor the local qualifiers in any signficant way to do this. However, it seems to me that it would encourage more non-qualified people to travel to the championship sites because they would have a better chance of qualifying if they knew they didn't have to compete with people who are already qualified. Of course, VEKN should then give qualified players another tournament to play on the day in question. I don't think that would be a bad thing. > I would also like to point out that on all the mini-qualifier days & > initially on the LCQ day (until Oscar came up trumps with some hidden > KoT) there were no other events to play in. Sure. That's not a necessary thing, though. Especially if you know a bunch of qualified people are present and can't participate in the LCQ. It's fairly trivial to add another tournament for them. > Even under the old system qualfied players still 'stole spots' if you > like as we couldn't be counted for determining the maximum number of > players to qualify. That didn't actually steal spots. It just meant you didn't have to compete against qualified players for spots. Another solution might be to run the LCQ with the old rule (albeit with all new players who made it to the final automatically qualifying). Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:gGIPk.35939$gD3....@newsfe01.iad... > Huh? "By their nature"? I'm not sure what is their 'nature' that this > would be inevitable conclusion. As far as I can see, they're just > intended as a sort of challenge so that the CQ is a little more special > than it would be if it were just some particularly large open tournament > that took place at a given time and place once a year. That is, > the qualification system is what differentiates a CQ from just a very > large open tournament, so the championship can be seen as a particularly > coveted title. BAH!!! I used the wrong acronym all through here. I was referring to Continental Championships, not CQs. Fred

> > Only absurd if all previous qualifiers were absurd. That's how they > used to work. You had an LCQ tournament of 60 people. 25 were already > qualified. The remaining 35 people fought it out for the appropriate > number of places. > James Coupe My 'absurd' point was directed at the idea of having an event that only those who weren't qualified could play in, especially if there is no suitable side event available (e.g. there was no draft in the LCQ in Prague or initially scheduled in Montreal). I still played in old style qualifiers once I was already qualified, I just didn't count when working out the 25% of the playbase or who had used up a slot. I have no preference towards qualified players playing & reducing the number of slots (e.g. in your example 35 for 25% old slots would give you 9) or by allowing double qualification but maintaining the potential maximum number of qualifiers from the event.

On Oct 30, 11:15 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I believe Oscar said that he wanted the rule to be: > > Day 1 > 60 players = 40 go on to Day 2 > Day 1 < 60 players = 25 go on to Day 2 LSJ and Oscar, what will the actual rules be for next year, regarding the number of players that go on to Day 2? Thanks, Ira

In article <gGIPk.35939$gD3....@newsfe01.iad>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Peter's suggestion, however, is totally logical and strikes me as a > very good idea. It wouldn't subvert the importance of the championship > nor the local qualifiers in any signficant way to do this. However, it > seems to me that it would encourage more non-qualified people to travel > to the championship sites because they would have a better chance of > qualifying if they knew they didn't have to compete with people who are > already qualified. Of course, VEKN should then give qualified players > another tournament to play on the day in question. I don't think that > would be a bad thing. Yaa! I love when Fred and I agree! So anyway, yeah--having a LCQ at the NAC (or whatever--man, that is too many acronyms) that didn't have already qualified players in it strikes me as completely reasonable. Make it a special situation for just that event. Which gives extra incentive for non qualified players to show up. And have side tournaments for already qualified players. I like the current system for qualification. And am perfectly ok with people being able to multiply qualify in general (given the overall increase in qualifying slots). But if I weren't already qualified, and my only chance to qualify was to go to the LCQ at the NAC which was 60% ringers? I likely wouldn't bother. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > So anyway, yeah--having a LCQ at the NAC (or whatever--man, that is > too many acronyms) that didn't have already qualified players in it > strikes me as completely reasonable. Make it a special situation for > just that event. Which gives extra incentive for non qualified > players to show up. And have side tournaments for already qualified > players. How about instead having a LCQ where qualified players can play but don't count for qualifying slots (as it used to be)? That way you don't run afoul of the "exclusion" issue. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <geo1nn$fa1$1...@aioe.org>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > How about instead having a LCQ where qualified players can play but don't > count for qualifying slots (as it used to be)? That way you don't run > afoul of the "exclusion" issue. I suppose that would work too. And as it is at the LCQ, it wouldn't be a record keeping nightmare. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:19:10 -0500, Peter D Bakija wrote: >> How about instead having a LCQ where qualified players can play but don't >> count for qualifying slots (as it used to be)? That way you don't run >> afoul of the "exclusion" issue. >I suppose that would work too. And as it is at the LCQ, it wouldn't be a >record keeping nightmare. I disagree. It will still be a record keeping nightmare. How many qualifiers were never reported this year alone? Hint, dozens more than you would expect from self-respecting tournament organizers.....

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-188A4A.2...@nntp.aioe.org... > In article <geo1nn$fa1$1...@aioe.org>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> > wrote: >> How about instead having a LCQ where qualified players can play but don't >> count for qualifying slots (as it used to be)? That way you don't run >> afoul of the "exclusion" issue. > > I suppose that would work too. And as it is at the LCQ, it wouldn't be a > record keeping nightmare. Well, in theory a person who qualifies at one LCQ would then be qualified to play in a subsequent Continental Championship elsewhere. But then, you would have some presumably very reliable recordkeeper interfacing with Robyn and only 4 LCQs to track. So hopefully, you're right that it shouldn't be the same thing as doing all the CQs that way. Fred

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f0avg491vonrqn5mf...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] That could be true but what possible difference could it make? All they'd need to have to run a qualifier is a list of those present who were already qualified. If they don't have such a list, how are they running the Continental Championships now?!? They need same the list - or else players would show up to play assuming they could play in the CC and then be shocked to find they couldn't. Given that it's the same list, what possible problem could it cause to need that list one day sooner? Or what am I missing, here? The reason it was a nightmare before was that every single person who ran a CQ anywhere in the world needed an accurate list of the pre-qualified in order to make an accurate determination of who became qualified at their CQ. Now, we're just saying that the people running LCQs need that list - one day before the same people will need the same list to run their Continental Championship events. Sounds reasonable to me. Fred

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 19:03:40 -0700, "Frederick Scott" wrote: >That could be true but what possible difference could it make? 15 players show up and say "I'm qualified" and they aren't on the list. Do you say 'fuck you' or do you let every player that shows up play? Reports aren't being turned in. I am not aware of any stragglers at this last championship event, but I know that at least one player that had never been in a qualifier tournament played in a day one championship event.

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:o8cvg4p3p970444r8...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm sorry, you're totally losing me here. The proposal was to run the LCQ under the same rules as were previously used for all CQs. The problem with the latter, we were told, was that the record-keeping was insane. That's certainly believable since the players who qualified at a given CQ depended on who had qualified at previous CQs. That, by itself, would be challenging to make work. Furthermore, I agree with the side-points you made above - namely, that: 1) players cannot be trusted to give correct information about their own status; and 2) organizers cannot be trusted to execute their reporting duties in a timely way and sometimes not at all. However, that said, the fact is that these problems must be surmounted to hold a fair Continental Championship event, anyway. I don't know what you do if players show up and lie about their status. I assume you check the list you have and if they're not on it, you say, "I'm sorry." If players claim to have qualified at CQs for which reports have never been received, you can accept their word or you can reject it but either way, I don't see why you can't do the same thing when holding the LCQ. So, again, I ask what do you think is supposed to be the problem with the suggestion? Fred

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:56:58 -0700, "Frederick Scott" wrote: >So, again, I ask what do you think is supposed to be the problem with >the suggestion? Pushing even more work onto Robyn. It is my belief that when you are ready to take over coordination of the qualified players and keep it up to date, you can make suggestions about how that information should be used. Other events are being run the same day as the LCQ in 2009. If you want previously qualified players to play in that alternate event, show up and do so. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com Your best online source for information about V:TES. Now also featuring individual card sales and sales of booster and starter box displays.

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5akvg4l43r46n9lg7...@4ax.com... > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:56:58 -0700, "Frederick Scott" wrote: > >>So, again, I ask what do you think is supposed to be the problem with >>the suggestion? > > Pushing even more work onto Robyn. For the third time, there is no more work that I can see. > It is my belief that when you are ready to take over coordination of > the qualified players and keep it up to date, you can make suggestions > about how that information should be used. It is my belief that the issue is pretty simple and that the question of who is ready to take over coordination of what doesn't enter into the price of beans in China. It's not that important of a dispute, comes down to it. I just think it's a waste of time reposting the same reasoning three times without bothering to respond to an obvious objection. Say it as many times as you like, the objection stands. Fred

In message <o8cvg4p3p970444r8...@4ax.com>, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> writes: >On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 19:03:40 -0700, "Frederick Scott" wrote: > >>That could be true but what possible difference could it make? > >15 players show up and say "I'm qualified" and they aren't on the >list. > >Do you say 'fuck you' or do you let every player that shows up play? That's completely irrelevant to the change being suggested. This problem already has to be handled for each CC. You need to know which players are qualified. If a player turns up and says "I'm qualified!" when they want to play in Day 1 of the NAC, it's exactly the same as the player turning up and saying "Oh, yeah, I'm already qualified" in a modified LCQ. Essentially, whoever is the record keeper will have to keep and publish a list of all players they know to be qualified. In a changed system, you make the cut-off point the start of the LCQ, not the start of Day 1 of the CC, a whole 24 hours earlier. The problem you are saying will be caused *already exists*. You already have to decide who's qualified and who's not. Why does doing it 24 hours earlier suddenly cause so much upheaval and pain and strife? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 3, 5:10 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <gGIPk.35939$gD3.15...@newsfe01.iad>, > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > > Peter's suggestion, however, is totally logical and strikes me as a > > very good idea. It wouldn't subvert the importance of the championship > > nor the local qualifiers in any signficant way to do this. However, it > > seems to me that it would encourage more non-qualified people to travel > > to the championship sites because they would have a better chance of > > qualifying if they knew they didn't have to compete with people who are > > already qualified. Of course, VEKN should then give qualified players > > another tournament to play on the day in question. I don't think that > > would be a bad thing. > > Yaa! I love when Fred and I agree! > I find agreeing with Fred to be a good barometer for insanity. =) Or at least a sign that I need to stop reading USENET and get back to work. As for the thread - I must have missed something, because it sounded to me like things worked out pretty well the way they are. And I thought it was reasonably settled last year... If you can't qualify with the expanded slots even with already qualified people playing, then maybe you aren't good enough to qualify... There's always Shadow Twin, right? I'm not really arguing against changing back to the old way, since I don't really care enough or have the energy at 6am (here) to put together a strong, well-reasoned argument either way. I just thought that the strong, well-reasoned arguments had all been given back in the day and that most people (well, with the likely exception of Fred... ;) ) had agreed...

On Nov 3, 11:38 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Pushing even more work onto Robyn. I think something is being misunderstood somewhere here. The suggestion at hand is that at the LCQ (alone. Just the LCQ at whatever championship is being had) that you institute a "people already qualified don't count for qualification in that tournament" like in the old system. Which doesn't require any special record keeping for anyone; sure some folks might say they aren't qualified when they are (although I can't imagine why, and presumably there is a list of already qualified players at the championship somewhere), and some folks might think they are qualified when the records don't say they are (which is a problem for the NAC, not this particular event). But in terms of special record keeping for this single (per Championship) event, it seems like really minimal effort for everyone. And nothing extra at all for Robyn, as all the record keeping is done on site at the one event. Once. And the people who become qualified at the LCQ are qualified right then for that Championship which is the next day. So even more not record keeping necessary. I think I'm not understanding what you are objecting to. -Peter

On Nov 4, 3:09 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <o8cvg4p3p970444r83q9k970e3hhvik...@4ax.com>, The Lasombra > > <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> writes: > >On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 19:03:40 -0700, "Frederick Scott" wrote: > > >>That could be true but what possible difference could it make? > > >15 players show up and say "I'm qualified" and they aren't on the > >list. > > >Do you say 'fuck you' or do you let every player that shows up play? > > That's completely irrelevant to the change being suggested. > > This problem already has to be handled for each CC. You need to know > which players are qualified. If a player turns up and says "I'm > qualified!" when they want to play in Day 1 of the NAC, it's exactly the > same as the player turning up and saying "Oh, yeah, I'm already > qualified" in a modified LCQ. > > Essentially, whoever is the record keeper will have to keep and publish > a list of all players they know to be qualified. In a changed system, > you make the cut-off point the start of the LCQ, not the start of Day 1 > of the CC, a whole 24 hours earlier. > > The problem you are saying will be caused *already exists*. You already > have to decide who's qualified and who's not. Why does doing it 24 > hours earlier suddenly cause so much upheaval and pain and strife? There is some potential for extra work later on down the line, if one of the newly-qualified LCQ players attempts to play in another CC later that year - when compiling that second list of qualified people, you have to know exactly who became qualified at each prior LCQ. This could be sidestepped by various means (such as letting people who qualified under the proposed LCQ requirements only participate in that specific CC). -witness1

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1dd06dea-232a-4d60...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, yea. But again, I'm confused how this is different from the current system. AFAICS, you ALREADY have to know exactly who became qualified at each prior LCQ for purposes of subsequent Continental Championships. No difference. Again, the huge problem caused by the former system was because of the fact that all CQ organizers everywhere needed an updated list of who was previously qualified at the moment of their event in order to calculate who had become qualified at their event. If LCQs only reverted back to that system, they would require the updated list again - but it doesn't really matter since all LCQs are always run 24 hours before a Continental Championship, which requires the same list anyway. Fred

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:15077fc9-9cc4-4b85...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > I find agreeing with Fred to be a good barometer for insanity. =) Careful!!! The voices in my head heard that!!!

On Nov 4, 11:05 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "witness1" <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:1dd06dea-232a-4d60...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 4, 3:09 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > > > Essentially, whoever is the record keeper will have to keep and publish > > > a list of all players they know to be qualified. In a changed system, > > > you make the cut-off point the start of the LCQ, not the start of Day 1 > > > of the CC, a whole 24 hours earlier. > > > > The problem you are saying will be caused *already exists*. You already > > > have to decide who's qualified and who's not. Why does doing it 24 > > > hours earlier suddenly cause so much upheaval and pain and strife? > > > There is some potential for extra work later on down the line, if one > > of the newly-qualified LCQ players attempts to play in another CC > > later that year - when compiling that second list of qualified people, > > you have to know exactly who became qualified at each prior LCQ. > > Well, yea. But again, I'm confused how this is different from the current > system. AFAICS, you ALREADY have to know exactly who became qualified at > each prior LCQ for purposes of subsequent Continental Championships. No > difference. Not as such. If the list is lost or forgotten, it's fairly simple to go through a list of Qualifier results and skim the top 25% of each. The results don't need to be in chronological order; nothing is dependent on anything else. This method requires that you track the LCQ results separately (and not lose that list between championship events). If the list is lost, you must separate all your Qualifier results from before LCQ1, compile your list of names from that data, remove matching names from the results of LCQ1, then take the top 25% of remaining players in LCQ1. Then you have to repeat this for LCQ2, LCQ3, ... That can easily be a not-insignificant increase in effort, depending on the number of championship events being held. > Again, the huge problem caused by the former system was because of the fact > that all CQ organizers everywhere needed an updated list of who was > previously qualified at the moment of their event in order to calculate who > had become qualified at their event. This is the reason is why the problem was huge instead of non-huge. It's not the reason why it was a problem at all. -witness

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:44fb979f-a12a-48fd...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] All right. You've got me. If the LCQ qualifier list is *FORGOTTEN*, there could be a *SCINTILLA* of extra work one might have to do to reconstruct it - *IF* one or more of the LCQ participants moves to a different continent. I file this under the category of, *SHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESHHHHHH!!!! THAT'S NITPICKY!!!* > That can easily be a not-insignificant increase in effort, depending > on the number of championship events being held. Um,...I disagree there is any liklihood of there ever being any significant work involved in this. Leave it at that. Fred