2006 Qualifying Rules are up

The rules to Qualify in the 2006 Tournament Season are up. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Championship Only change: To reward the organizers who put so much time and effort into organizing these events, the organizers for regional qualifiers automatically qualify. Regards, -- Oscar J Garza III Organized Play Coordinator White Wolf

OrgPlay wrote: > The rules to Qualify in the 2006 Tournament Season are up. > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Championship > > Only change: > > To reward the organizers who put so much time and effort into > organizing these events, the organizers for regional qualifiers > automatically qualify. > Who exactly is an organizer of the qualifier? Sometimes the head judge (who is not playing) is not the same person as the organizers (taking care of location and so on) are they both (or if more than two, all) qualified? What about the other people taking care of national organization and their effort? While I welcome this change I suppose it should be clarified who *exactly* will be targetted by this rule. -- johannes walch

[ quoted text not captured ] Surely it is limited to anyone who cannot play in the Qualifier itself due to their duties in making it happen, namely Judging the event. So someone who sorted the venue and a few logistical things but can still play in the qualifier would not benefit, whereas all Judges do. This seems like a good point to invite everyone to the UK ECQ, where our team of 25 highly trained judges awaits any players who may or may not turn up, as sadly all UK players are unable to play due to judging commitments ;)

Johannes Walch wrote: > OrgPlay wrote: > > The rules to Qualify in the 2006 Tournament Season are up. > > > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Championship > > > > Only change: > > > > To reward the organizers who put so much time and effort into > > organizing these events, the organizers for regional qualifiers > > automatically qualify. > > > > Who exactly is an organizer of the qualifier? Oscar's use of the plural organizers probably means to refer to the fact that there are multiple qualfiers and not that there are multiple organizers at each qualifier. I think there is still one "organizer" for each event. Each organizers are prohibited from playing in events they organize. > Sometimes the head judge > (who is not playing) is not the same person as the organizers (taking > care of location and so on) Correct. The organizer is often the head judge but it isn't necessarily so. > are they both (or if more than two, all) > qualified? I think Oscar means that the one organizer is qualified. Seems probable that if he meant to have the each event's judge qualified as well he would have stated it that way. -Robert

Anthony Coleman wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: > > What about the other people taking care of national organization and > > their effort? > > > > While I welcome this change I suppose it should be clarified who > > *exactly* will be targetted by this rule. > > Surely it is limited to anyone who cannot play in the Qualifier itself > due to their duties in making it happen, namely Judging the event. So > someone who sorted the venue and a few logistical things but can still > play in the qualifier would not benefit, whereas all Judges do. The organizer of record is prohibited from participating by the V:EKN tournament rules. I know that in practice the organizers and judges are usually the same people at most events, but the tournament rules refer to them as separate entitites. Oscar seems to be using the terms in their strictest sense (the way they are referred to in the tournament rules) and not some vague "anybody who helped organize or judge the event" sense. -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] I guess this basically tries to ensure that the organizers and judges are the same people. Not sure why that is good, as I know wonderful organizers who aren't wonderful judges (and vice verse)... -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On 12 Jan 2006 08:15:35 -0800, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > > The organizer of record is prohibited from participating by the V:EKN > > tournament rules. > I guess this basically tries to ensure that the organizers and judges > are the same people. Don't recall ever having a conversation with that goal in mind. My understanding is that this exists because the organizer selects the judge. Having the organizer not play avoids any appearance of inpropriety should the judge need to make a ruling involving the organizer. -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] And if you have more than one organizer? If you fix this to one person the following thing will happen: Since only one person gets the "reward" there will be suddenly only one person doing all the work. Other people will think "hey, he gets qualified for it, why should I take over some of the tasks". What about the national coordinators? They contributed their work even in regular intervals, what will they think, or the organizers of the continental championships? What about countries having multiple (mutually exclusive) qualifiers, like Spain? How many people will qualify there? One -> very unfair. All of them? This will force the introduction of more multiple qualifiers per country, for sure. And I don´t think that´s a good thing for most of the countries, because it seperates the players base to some extent. It may work for Spain, it will not for other, but if you allow it there you can not forbid it for others. In short: Until now there has been no reward for voluntary work in VTES. Now there will be a reward but only for some specific people and that is a really bad situation in my opinion. Also, the qualification system is there to ensure a high level of play in the championship. Why should people qualify just because they organize an event? -- johannes walch

> In short: Until now there has been no reward for voluntary work in VTES. > Now there will be a reward but only for some specific people and that is > a really bad situation in my opinion. > > Also, the qualification system is there to ensure a high level of play > in the championship. Why should people qualify just because they > organize an event? > I so totally agree with Johannes. Also, when exactly will the organisers have to be announced, and how will changes be handled? I mean, like, let's say Players A (who will orgainse an ECQ himself later on) and B go to an ECQ. player A qualifies, player B doesn't.Logically, at this point, all of a sudden player A can't organise his own ECQ(due to ilness or whatever), and player B becomes the organiser of the next ECQ.Just puuuurely coincidental. Not that unthinkable I believe. I think this way of handling things will only encourage/increase strange occurances and strife betwen players, and not do very much for the game in itself. When you organise an event, you know you cannot qualifiy at that event. There are other rewards. I mean, if you take this further: what are we then giving the organiser of the EC? the title? I know this sounds really negative, and I have always strongly believed there should be some system to reward the organisers and people who invest their time and efort to tihs game.Hel, I've done my part in complaininng about the lack of this exact thing. But auto-qualifying really isn't the way to do it. (Note: for those who don't know this: I'm one of the people who could most easily profit from this system (small country, small playerbase). and even I think it shouldn't work this way) Strongly hoping this decision will be revoked, but guessing it won't be.. /jo

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:07:13 +0100, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> scrawled: >And if you have more than one organizer? If you fix this to one person >the following thing will happen: Since only one person gets the "reward" >there will be suddenly only one person doing all the work. Other people >will think "hey, he gets qualified for it, why should I take over some >of the tasks". What about the national coordinators? They contributed >their work even in regular intervals, what will they think, or the >organizers of the continental championships? As far as i understand it, only the tournament organiser of record and the head judge are prevented from playing. all the other organisers (and assistant judges, perhaps?) are allowed to play and thus get a chance to qualify as normal. salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

salem wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:07:13 +0100, Johannes Walch > <johanne...@vekn.de> scrawled: > > >>And if you have more than one organizer? If you fix this to one person >>the following thing will happen: Since only one person gets the "reward" >>there will be suddenly only one person doing all the work. Other people >>will think "hey, he gets qualified for it, why should I take over some >>of the tasks". What about the national coordinators? They contributed >>their work even in regular intervals, what will they think, or the >>organizers of the continental championships? > > > As far as i understand it, only the tournament organiser of record and > the head judge are prevented from playing. all the other organisers > (and assistant judges, perhaps?) are allowed to play and thus get a > chance to qualify as normal. Except when not rules but complexity of event doesn´t permit them to play. On top of that I have always performed very poorly at events I co-organized and played because you have so much stress that you never find the time to prepare a good deck and concentrate on your game, so I stopped playing at events co-organized by me. -- johannes walch

OrgPlay skrev: > The rules to Qualify in the 2006 Tournament Season are up. > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Championship > > Only change: > > To reward the organizers who put so much time and effort into > organizing these events, the organizers for regional qualifiers > automatically qualify. > I can't help but think this is a bad thing. Three arguments: 1) Running a qualifier is hard work, but it doesn't make you a good player. Qualification should be based on performance alone. 2) The larger qualifiers requires more than one person to run things. Having one carrot in the stakes might make it more difficult to get person two, three etc interested in running the event instead of playing. 3) The organizer will most probably be the local prince. The carrot will even further detract from the rule that the local prince should be the local demo-slave rather than the prince-in-command. I firmly believe that any rewards should first and foremost be rewards strengthening the local playgroup. Now, I can see why rewarding hard work in other ways might help indirectly, but why not make it something other than a ticket to the CC? A sideevent during the timespan of the CC, like a working-dinner instead? Would help the initial planning of next years CC. Sten During

Sten During wrote: > I firmly believe that any rewards should first and foremost be > rewards strengthening the local playgroup. Now, I can see why > rewarding hard work in other ways might help indirectly, but why > not make it something other than a ticket to the CC? A sideevent > during the timespan of the CC, like a working-dinner instead? Would > help the initial planning of next years CC. 'Cause entry to the CC is something that costs nothing and is actually a handy reward for running a premier event (i.e. a Qualifier). Given that the person running the Qualifier can't play, and in most cases, it will be inconvinient to get to another, non local qualifier. By running a Qualifier, you are, in many cases, giving up the opportunity to Qualify yourself. It doesn't strike me as at all unreasonable to hand out a CC qualification. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry for probably the really dumb question? This is more in regard to Australia, so a qualifer organised in a state (NSW for example) is that state's regional qualifier?

Johannes Walch wrote: > OrgPlay wrote: > > The rules to Qualify in the 2006 Tournament Season are up. > > > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Championship > > > > Only change: > > > > To reward the organizers who put so much time and effort into > > organizing these events, the organizers for regional qualifiers > > automatically qualify. > > Where does it say that the organizer can not play in the event? I see a bunch of people who have made this assumption and I cannot find where it is listed. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: > Where does it say that the organizer can not play in the event? I see > a bunch of people who have made this assumption and I cannot find where > it is listed. Tournament Rules, section 2.9 Multi Judge System: "The Multi-Judge System may be used at any non-qualifier, non-championship tournament with at least eight participants (i.e., having at least two tables). Organizers choosing this system must announce its use before the tournament begins and identify six judges as head judge, secondary judge, and third, fourth, fifth, and sixth judge. Organizers should use good judgement when selecting the Multi-Judge System and should ensure its use will not disrupt the event. Tournament organizers may only participate in events they sanction if they are using the Multi-Judge System. These types of events are the only ones in which judges and/or tournament organizers are allowed to participate." By "Organizer", I suspect that this benefit (i.e. auto-qualification) refers to "Guy who doesn't play the event, and instead judges the event". -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks! I need to get my pencil sharpened! [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > XZealot wrote: > >>Where does it say that the organizer can not play in the event? I see >>a bunch of people who have made this assumption and I cannot find where >>it is listed. > > Tournament Rules, section 2.9 Multi Judge System: More directly, VEKN 1.1 Player Eligibility. -- That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet. Keep a little and let a little come back to me. LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

pd...@lightlink.com skrev: [ quoted text not captured ] The cost-factor is indeed there. Not being able to participate is part of running the event. I know that firsthand three years straight now. Being one of those who have to find a separate time and location for my own qualification should at least give some credibility to my arguments. Sten During

[ quoted text not captured ] I presume it's a joke ! I know how to rule an Event but i don't know how to play. Great I would be qualified. If you want to reward organizer, make something else. Give them T shirt, boosters, promos cards and so on.... Your system is unfair. What about Princes ? What about National Coordinators ? Nothing ! I can't believe it ! Regards, Loïc "xpmaster" Gervais NC France.

xpmaster wrote: > I presume it's a joke ! Why? > I know how to rule an Event but i don't know how to play. Uhh, yeah. The likelyhood of someone running a National Qualifying Tournament, but not knowing how to play is really, really small. Likely, they are just the guy from the local play group who got suckered into organizing the event. >Great I would be qualified. Run a Qualifier. Then you will be. You are probably better off just doing well in a tournament. Likely less work and easier to do. > If you want to reward organizer, make something else. > Give them T shirt, boosters, promos cards and so on.... When you run an event, you don't get to play. Most folks who run Qualifiers can't get to other Qualifying tournaments, as they tend to be spread around the country. Thus, by running a Qualifier, they are volunteering, in most cases, to not get to qualify themselves. Strikes me as a reasonable compromise. > Your system is unfair. More unfair than getting hosed out of an opportunity to qualify yourself by volunteering to do a lot of work and organization for nothing? > What about Princes ? > What about National Coordinators ? If they run Qualifiers, they get to Qualify automatically. If they don't, they get to play and Qualify like everyone else. Seems perfectly reasonable. -Peter

"xpmaster" <kya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1138047608....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > OrgPlay wrote: >> To reward the organizers who put so much time and effort into >> organizing these events, the organizers for regional qualifiers >> automatically qualify. > I presume it's a joke ! I presume your reply is a joke... > I know how to rule an Event but i don't know how to play. Great I would > be qualified. Name one instance where a Championiship Qualifier was run by a person who didn't play the game... The new policy just makes it more likely that the T.O. and the Head Judge will be the same person... > If you want to reward organizer, make something else. > Give them T shirt, boosters, promos cards and so on.... Sure, equate the inconvenience of travelling out of state/country to a neighboring CQ with a T-shirt. That must be one hell of a T-shirt... > Your system is unfair. ...as is your analysis. > What about Princes ? > What about National Coordinators ? They have the Heartfelt Appreciation of Their Peers, for being the good little demo monkeys that they are. Come by my house, and I'll give you a popsicle, too. > Nothing ! *Gasp*!!! How dare you denigrate the Heartfelt Appreciation of Peers so!!! (back of hand to forehead). > I can't believe it ! Nor I!! Your temerity, sir, has no limits... DaveZ Atom Weaver

In message <1138047608....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, xpmaster <kya...@hotmail.com> writes: >Your system is unfair. > >What about Princes ? >What about National Coordinators ? They qualify as normal, just like always. This adds a few people who can often otherwise not get to another qualifier and who are prevented from qualifying at the qualifier that's put on in their area. For everyone else, it's exactly the same as before. Princes don't have any special rights, anyway. They're just ordinary people. If they were the tournament organiser of record, they'd qualify. But otherwise, they have exactly the same opportunities to qualify as everyone else - the tournament organisers don't. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

xpmaster wrote: > OrgPlay wrote: > > The rules to Qualify in the 2006 Tournament Season are up. > > > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Championship > > > > Only change: > > > > To reward the organizers who put so much time and effort into > > organizing these events, the organizers for regional qualifiers > > automatically qualify. > > I presume it's a joke ! > > I know how to rule an Event but i don't know how to play. Great I would > be qualified. I think it is an excellent reward for Regional Qualifier organizers. In my experience, organizers of such events are not precisely bad players. Besides, what is the matter if an organizer happens to be a bad player? Have you never encountered a bad player in a Continental Championship? >:-) > If you want to reward organizer, make something else. > Give them T shirt, boosters, promos cards and so on.... > > Your system is unfair. This automatic qualification for organizers is a fair system for people who voluntarily work so hard to run Continental Qualifiers. I am against material rewards, such as those you suggest, since they may increase corruption. > What about Princes ? > What about National Coordinators ? They are volunteers too, who sometimes organize Continental Qualifiers and could therefore benefit from this new system. -- Damnans

"xpmaster" <kya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1138047608....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... I know how to rule an Event but i don't know how to play. Great I would be qualified. If you want to reward organizer, make something else. Give them T shirt, boosters, promos cards and so on.... to be quite honest in tournaments the size of the championships, specially with two-day events, if you don't belong, you will not get far. Little harm done. -John P Winnipeg

pd...@lightlink.com skrev: > Qualify yourself. It doesn't strike me as at all unreasonable to hand > out a CC qualification. > Still think CC qualification should be on a performance base only. I don't want to see Samaranch (spelling?) participate in the olympics neither. Sten During

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:43de2dc9$0$9248$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com... > pd...@lightlink.com skrev: > >> Qualify yourself. It doesn't strike me as at all unreasonable to hand >> out a CC qualification. >> > > > Still think CC qualification should be on a performance base only. But you haven't progressed your argument any. Repeated re-assertion of ones beliefs is schoolyard/webforum argumentation (if said it enough times, someone might think its a fact). Care to comment on the already-posted responses to your assertion, instead? > I > don't want to see Samaranch (spelling?) participate in the olympics > neither. A non-sequitur (for those who even know what you reference). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Antonio_Samaranch Samaranch was never an athlete, always just a bureaucrat, and so the analogy fails... VEKN is in almost all ways unlike an organization as big as the IOC (despite the prodigious bureaucracy some would like to burden VEKN with). And I would ask you again, (and with xpmaster) to first point me to _one_ example of a VTES CQ which was run by a non-player. (I expect that there is even a reasonably strong argument to be made that all CQ's have been run not just by any old players, but by Good Players (ie players otherwise capable of qualifying) at that.) DaveZ Atom Weaver

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:%OsDf.9755$NS6....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com... > "Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message > news:43de2dc9$0$9248$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com... >> pd...@lightlink.com skrev: >>> Qualify yourself. It doesn't strike me as at all unreasonable to hand >>> out a CC qualification. >> >> Still think CC qualification should be on a performance base only. > > But you haven't progressed your argument any. Repeated re-assertion of ones > beliefs is schoolyard/webforum argumentation (if said it enough times, > someone might think its a fact). Care to comment on the already-posted > responses to your assertion, instead? I guess this seems like something that's a bit "self-apparent" to me. Sten thinks (I'm guessing) that if you're going to tell people they can't play in an event unless they've qualified through a certain system that tests players' abilities through competition, that this should be the only way that one can qualify. Or at least all qualifiers ought to have demonstrated ability through one means or another. (Obviously, last year's CC finalists have demonstrated ability by other means.) It's just a matter of consistency, I guess. Myself, I personally don't think it's all that big of a deal and I can see why they might want to bastardize the system in recognition of the fact that a lot of the guys who are well-qualified to run a CQ are also people who would want to qualify themselves and so it solves a practical problem. (Especially given that it's not all that hard to qualify if you get the chance, all things considered.) But I can why some might find it a distasteful compromise of an otherwise purely skill-based system. Just playing Devil's Advocate. (Or "Sten's Advocate" - don't know if that's the same... :-) ) (Bored-at-work post, heh!) Fred

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:metDf.16727$JT.4381@fed1read06... > "David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message > news:%OsDf.9755$NS6....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com... >> "Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message >> news:43de2dc9$0$9248$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com... >>> pd...@lightlink.com skrev: >>>> Qualify yourself. It doesn't strike me as at all unreasonable to hand >>>> out a CC qualification. >>> >>> Still think CC qualification should be on a performance base only. >> >> But you haven't progressed your argument any. Repeated re-assertion of >> ones >> beliefs is schoolyard/webforum argumentation (if said it enough times, >> someone might think its a fact). Care to comment on the already-posted >> responses to your assertion, instead? > > I guess this seems like something that's a bit "self-apparent" to me. > Sten thinks (I'm guessing) that if you're going to tell people they can't > play in an event unless they've qualified through a certain system that > tests players' abilities through competition, that this should be the > only way that one can qualify. Or at least all qualifiers ought to have > demonstrated ability through one means or another. (Obviously, last > year's CC finalists have demonstrated ability by other means.) It's > just a matter of consistency, I guess. > If your Sten-guessing is accurate, then I'll reply to it; The CQ organizers are the one (absurdly small) subset of players who are denied their (local) oportunity to demonstrate their ability, and this through their own act of selflessness. Forcing them to travel to qualify runs contrary to the desire to continue to foster volunteerism from the player base. Doing this for the bureaucratic purpose of making sure every one has their appropriate "paperwork" might be consistent (in one sense), but is also inconsistent in that it precludes some players from the opportunity to play for the championships. If the desire for all players to be qualified stems from some desire for a de facto standard of player quality in the event, the impact of CQ-qualified peoples will be negligible, even without the recently added extra round of elimination (assuming that they are even below the standard of a normally qualified player. As I said before, I believe there's a case to be made that nearly all CQ organizers are also players who are competent enough to qualify, if given the opportunity). > Myself, I personally don't think it's all that big of a deal and I can > see why they might want to bastardize the system in recognition of the > fact that a lot of the guys who are well-qualified to run a CQ are also > people who would want to qualify themselves and so it solves a practical > problem. (Especially given that it's not all that hard to qualify if you > get the chance, all things considered.) But I can why some might find > it a distasteful compromise of an otherwise purely skill-based system. > Just playing Devil's Advocate. (Or "Sten's Advocate" - don't know if > that's the same... :-) ) Yeah, I hear ya, Fred... Unfortunately, we cannot accomdate all players when the organizational structure is based on volunteerism. The volunteer is always excluded. The current system mitigates this for the tournaments which matter most. IMO, its a better compromise... until the game can fund its own (corrupt) International VTES Committe, that is ;-) > (Bored-at-work post, heh!) > Seconded DZ AW

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:k4vDf.4416$ur7....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com... > until the game can fund its own (corrupt) International > VTES Committe, that is ;-) I can't wait! Just the entertainment caused by the furor over the new drug-testing policy alone could be worth the price of admission. ("Sorry, dude! If you can't even hit the bottle in three tries, you're out of there!") Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Dunno. I've seen events run by non-VTES player store owners. I think that the judge is the ultimate samaritan who would need to get qualified. Because, well, I assume that being a Judge at an event really assumes you are at least as versed in the game as the best players, and your experience is at least sufficient to judge in-game situations impartially. If anyone should get qualified at all. Because it is hard to resist Fred's simple but thoughtful point, that if participation is tied to qualification, then the qualification should be necessary for everyone. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > > Dunno. I've seen events run by non-VTES player store owners. I think that > the judge is the ultimate samaritan who would need to get qualified. > Because, well, I assume that being a Judge at an event really assumes > you are at least as versed in the game as the best players, and your > experience is at least sufficient to judge in-game situations impartially. > > If anyone should get qualified at all. Because it is hard to resist Fred's > simple but thoughtful point, that if participation is tied to > qualification, then the qualification should be necessary for everyone. > a great judge can be a lousy player, i have seen tournaments run by bad judges, that are even worse players. s,

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:11:38 +0100, Stefan Ferenci <nos...@thankyou.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: > >> Dunno. I've seen events run by non-VTES player store owners. I think >> that >> the judge is the ultimate samaritan who would need to get qualified. >> Because, well, I assume that being a Judge at an event really assumes >> you are at least as versed in the game as the best players, and your >> experience is at least sufficient to judge in-game situations >> impartially. >> >> If anyone should get qualified at all. Because it is hard to resist >> Fred's >> simple but thoughtful point, that if participation is tied to >> qualification, then the qualification should be necessary for everyone. > > a great judge can be a lousy player, Well, true, but I guess the probability of a good judge also being a good player at the same time is higher than the probability of a good tournament organiser being a good player as well. > i have seen tournaments run by bad judges, that are even worse players. > > s, I guess that's a different topic, but still, the above point kind of still stands. There's even less guarantee that a tournament organiser is a good player than there is that a judge is a good player. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:ops39dke...@news.chello.hu... > On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:56:49 GMT, David Zopf <david...@snetx.net> wrote: > >> The CQ organizers >> are the one (absurdly small) subset of players who are denied their >> (local) >> oportunity to demonstrate their ability, and this through their own act >> of selflessness. > > Dunno. I've seen events run by non-VTES player store owners. Are you trying to equate that somehow with the thread subject (namely, Championship Qualifiers)? All Qualifiers are tournaments, but not all tournaments are Qualifiers. We're talking about Qualifiers here, not local tournaments... What is your experience with Qualifiers, specifically, have you been to or heard of one run by a non-player? >I think that > the judge is the ultimate samaritan who would need to get qualified. > Because, well, I assume that being a Judge at an event really assumes > you are at least as versed in the game as the best players, and your > experience is at least sufficient to judge in-game situations > impartially. > Yeah, a few days back i noted how I thought that this system would tend to encourage the TO and the Head Judge to become the same person. Meh, is that a bad thing, a good thing, or just a thing? > If anyone should get qualified at all. Because it is hard to resist Fred's > simple but thoughtful point, that if participation is tied to > qualification, then the qualification should be necessary for everyone. > Its a simple thought, yes... Does that mean its a good one? Not in itself, no. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Stefan Ferenci" <nos...@thankyou.com> wrote in message news:43dfc47a$0$12126$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... [ quoted text not captured ] Have you seen a CQ run by a bad judge? Have you seen a CQ run by a non-player? Have you seen a CQ run by a bad player? DZ AW

David Zopf skrev: > "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:metDf.16727$JT.4381@fed1read06... >> "David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message >> news:%OsDf.9755$NS6....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com... >>> "Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message >>> news:43de2dc9$0$9248$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com... >>>> pd...@lightlink.com skrev: >>>>> Qualify yourself. It doesn't strike me as at all unreasonable to hand >>>>> out a CC qualification. >>>> Still think CC qualification should be on a performance base only. >>> But you haven't progressed your argument any. Repeated re-assertion of >>> ones >>> beliefs is schoolyard/webforum argumentation (if said it enough times, >>> someone might think its a fact). Care to comment on the already-posted >>> responses to your assertion, instead? >> I guess this seems like something that's a bit "self-apparent" to me. >> Sten thinks (I'm guessing) that if you're going to tell people they can't >> play in an event unless they've qualified through a certain system that >> tests players' abilities through competition, that this should be the >> only way that one can qualify. Or at least all qualifiers ought to have >> demonstrated ability through one means or another. (Obviously, last >> year's CC finalists have demonstrated ability by other means.) It's >> just a matter of consistency, I guess. >> > If your Sten-guessing is accurate, then I'll reply to it; The CQ organizers It is correct. > are the one (absurdly small) subset of players who are denied their (local) > oportunity to demonstrate their ability, and this through their own act of > selflessness. Forcing them to travel to qualify runs contrary to the desire > to continue to foster volunteerism from the player base. Doing this for the > bureaucratic purpose of making sure every one has their appropriate > "paperwork" might be consistent (in one sense), but is also inconsistent in > that it precludes some players from the opportunity to play for the > championships. I disagree. I've traveled to Denmark twice in order to qualify as I'm not eligible for the Gothenburg qualifier. The last two years have had me qualifying at the last chance qualifier because I didn't play well enough to make it in Denmark two years ago and because there simply wasn't time last year. So I'm one of those who will benefit 50% from the new rule. 50%? Well try running a 40 player qualifier alone. We'll flip a coin here I guess. The local prince it NOT a Prince. Prince == Demo Monkey, Card Slave etc. The thing about NOT receiving an extra benefit is that it makes it EASIER, not harder, to conscript additional slave-labour for an event, which what non-profit events are all about. > > If the desire for all players to be qualified stems from some desire for a > de facto standard of player quality in the event, the impact of CQ-qualified > peoples will be negligible, even without the recently added extra round of > elimination (assuming that they are even below the standard of a normally > qualified player. As I said before, I believe there's a case to be made > that nearly all CQ organizers are also players who are competent enough to > qualify, if given the opportunity). I agree that it will be neglible, but it won't SEEM neglible for all participants. I'm right on the limit I'd say, but then again, who could fail to qualify with !Tor/breed/vote/bleed or DOM/bleed/bounce. I never had to be competent to qualify during the last qualifier with those decks. An automation would have done as well. > Yeah, I hear ya, Fred... Unfortunately, we cannot accomdate all players > when the organizational structure is based on volunteerism. The volunteer > is always excluded. The current system mitigates this for the tournaments > which matter most. IMO, its a better compromise... until the game can fund > its own (corrupt) International VTES Committe, that is ;-) > I've already stated my response on volunteerism, and believe me, I have quite extensive experience in that area. We have an International VTES Committee already, albeit not corrupt. Sten During