(LSJ) Passing Qualifing Spot for Championships

Yello, I was wondering about the Continental Championships and the qualifing. Can someone give up their qualifing spot to someone (or at least to the next person down the line) at a Qualifier? If so, are there any other guidelines about the procedure? Danke Jamie The Seppo

[ quoted text not captured ] Any player can decide not to be counted for the qualifying spots. That player must inform the judge before the tournament begins (before the first round starts) that she does not wish to be counted for qualification purposes. That player is then treated exactly as a pre-qualified player would be (for the purposes of that tournament, that is). -- 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/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:4015C16...@white-wolf.com... > Jamie The Seppo wrote: > > Yello, > > I was wondering about the Continental Championships and the > > qualifing. Can someone give up their qualifing spot to someone (or at > > least to the next person down the line) at a Qualifier? > > If so, are there any other guidelines about the procedure? > > Any player can decide not to be counted for the qualifying spots. > That player must inform the judge before the tournament begins > (before the first round starts) that she does not wish to be > counted for qualification purposes. > That player is then treated exactly as a pre-qualified player > would be (for the purposes of that tournament, that is). Meaning that he or she is also not counted toward the number of "non-qualified participating players" for purposes of determining the number of qualifying spots available? (ie, the 25% of the not-previously-qualified players will not count this person as a not-previously-qualified player.) thanks, Josh un-overqualified

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Meaning that he or she is also not counted toward the number of > "non-qualified participating players" for purposes of determining the > number of qualifying spots available? (ie, the 25% of the > not-previously-qualified players will not count this person as a > not-previously-qualified player.) Yes. Having 15 "I don' wanna qual" players and 5 "I hope I qual" players doesn't mean that the 5 "I hope I qual" automagically get qualifier spots. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:40168B61...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Meaning that he or she is also not counted toward the number of > > "non-qualified participating players" for purposes of determining the > > number of qualifying spots available? (ie, the 25% of the > > not-previously-qualified players will not count this person as a > > not-previously-qualified player.) > > Yes. Having 15 "I don' wanna qual" players and 5 "I hope I qual" > players doesn't mean that the 5 "I hope I qual" automagically > get qualifier spots. Makes sense. But that means that the "you can declare you're not intending to go to the championships" option isn't likely to actually help Australian players all that much in improving their ability to get the geographically distant qualifying players to their continental championship tournament. Of course, the rule may not have been intended specifically to be of use to Australian players. But in this case, perhaps they could use some other help (eg continent-specific qualifying rules, rather than the same qualifying rules as the other three organized continents, as it seems clear that each continent has enough unique characteristics that one approach does not necessarily fit all). Josh one of these things is not like the others

> > Of course, the rule may not have been intended specifically to be of use > to Australian players. But in this case, perhaps they could use some > other help (eg continent-specific qualifying rules, rather than the same > qualifying rules as the other three organized continents, as it seems > clear that each continent has enough unique characteristics that one > approach does not necessarily fit all). > That's a sensible suggestion. Perhaps we could use the old rules for our Nats but the new rules would apply to anyone wanting to use their qualification to play overseas? That way we keep our Nats viable but at the same time don't "sneak in the back door" as it were into other continental championships. Chris.

In message <bv63gh$p3taj$1...@ID-121616.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >to Australian players. But in this case, perhaps they could use some >other help (eg continent-specific qualifying rules, rather than the same >qualifying rules as the other three organized continents, as it seems >clear that each continent has enough unique characteristics that one >approach does not necessarily fit all). God forbid that I should provide assistance of a positive nature... I suggest that all players who make the Final Table of a qualifier could be automatically qualified, regardless of 25% considerations, and the 25% be extended from there. This rule would apply to all continents. Benefits: 1) Solves problem stated above, where 15 "i ain't goings" produce 1.25 qualifying positions available in a 20-person tournament. Untidy. 2) Easily extensible with 25% rule. Assume 30-person tournament in order to make math more difficult. 15 players declare intent to not qualify, leaving 4 qualifying positions available (25% of 15, rounded up). Two of those players make the final table. 3 others from final qualify, next 1 down the chain qualifies. OK, maybe not even that complicated, but you get the idea. 3) Solves problem of having final potentially become one HUGE out-of-game consideration, especially if less qualifying spots than finalists. If there are only 4 spots, only the person who sat 5th has any incentive whatsoever to do anything but wall up and defend for 2 hours, taking the timeout, and qualifying by default. Saying that "you should play to win" is all well and good, but it won't happen when it comes down to the wire -- people will have their eye on the qualifier spots and will rationalize their decisions away accordingly. It is entirely possible in the above scenario that 4 people would immediately jump on the weakest player and oust him/her, even cross table -- which doesn't even violate the play to win rule since you don't give up the Game Win. Drawbacks: 1) Mandatory minimum size for tournaments to be considered qualifier might be necessary. 5 players qualifying from 12-person tournament is only 2 more than 25% but still might be too much? 2) More complex than original rule, and is not relevant for tournaments with 20 or more non-eligible players anyway. To quote from Chief Herman's Holiday Fun Pack: is this adding on too much clay? 3) Overenthusiasm might lead to people wanting the top 5 eligible players to be qualified no matter what, potentially leading back around to the "all but 2 eligible players qualified" syndrome. OK, sure that's a bit of a stretch, but just a thought. Discussion? -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:48:35 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: [snip finals table additional qualifying criteria] >Discussion? you suck! no, wait. i mean: your proposed rule could be: in tournaments with less than 20 non-quals, everyone at the final table qualifies. (i think that's equivalent). i like the cut of your jib on this one. however, with this i would also like to see a minimum number of non-qual entrants for a qualifier to ...erm, qualify as a qualifier. perhaps 8 (minimum ppl required for 2 tables, if no other qualified people are there). salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm