Are there any Guidelines for the location of Regional Qualifier Events?
Example:
Spain has 2 each year, and the same players cannot attend both events.
Australia has 2 in the same city in the same year.
Are there plans for the V:EKN to codify some rules around regional qualifiers so that all players will have an equal chance to qualify?
Jeff, it sounds to me like you're talking about equality of OUTCOME and not equality of OPPORTUNITY.
If I'm correct, then I don't think that any changes will be forthcoming.
If I'm wrong, could you explain a little more in-depth what you believe the problem(s) to be, with the solution(s) that you foresee fixing the problem(s)? Thanks.
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! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> KevinM wrote:
> Jeff, it sounds to me like you're talking about equality of OUTCOME and not equality of OPPORTUNITY.
>
Spain prohibits players from playing in both of the qualifiers in their country.
Australia had multiple qualifiers in the same city with no prohibitions.
This seems very bad for Spanish players.
Why punish them?
If a playgroup must travel more than one hour to play with another group, they should be entitled to hold their own regional qualifier.
Where one hour could be some distance determined by the V:EKN local volunteers in association with the national volunteers and applied to all countries equally.
In Australia we are deliberately trying to increase the numbers of people attending the Championship event. It was easier before repeat-qualification, we could skip over the previously qualified players. It's also a shame to have a National Event and not qualify a large number of people for the Continental Championships (since very few of the AUS players would find it easy to attend Championships outside of AUS I don't know why there is such a problem...).
I can understand from Spain's perspective because they want to stop people multi-qualifying and if their playerbase can easily support those 'rules' then congratulations to them. In Europe it would be easy to get the EC to 40+ players if you only qualified the Nationals Finalists... there are more than 8 VTES playing countries on their continent. In Australia, we want to qualify as many as we can... and there is the Asian Championship system with an Open Continental Championship...
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Adonai wrote:
>
> > KevinM wrote:
> > Jeff, it sounds to me like you're talking about equality of OUTCOME and not equality of OPPORTUNITY.
> >
> Spain prohibits players from playing in both of the qualifiers in their country.
> [...].
>
> This seems very bad for Spanish players.
>
> Why punish them?
>
That is no longer so since last year.
For countries like France and Spain which split each of their Continental Qualifiers in two events, any players who participate in one of them are now allowed to participate in the other, but:
- They will not be taken into account when calculating the top 25% of players in the other tournament (who would qualify). That means that if the tournament had 20 participants, and one of them had already qualified in a previous Continental Qualifier in the same country, for qualifying purposes the tournament would be considered to have 19 participants instead.
- And they will not be able to qualify.
V:EKN Website Coordinator
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> if their playerbase can easily support those 'rules' then congratulations to them.
>
This. Local situations are different, I don't see how a rigid worldwide rule could avoid doing more harm than good. As a European player, I could not care less if Australians have it easier to qualify to the EC. If an Australian actually flies to Stockholm, than he has more than earned his qualification in my book.
> Adonai wrote:
>
> > KevinM wrote:
> > Jeff, it sounds to me like you're talking about equality of OUTCOME and not equality of OPPORTUNITY.
> >
> Spain prohibits players from playing in both of the qualifiers in their country.
> Australia had multiple qualifiers in the same city with no prohibitions.
>
> This seems very bad for Spanish players.
>
> Why punish them?
>
> If a playgroup must travel more than one hour to play with another group, they should be entitled to hold their own regional qualifier.
>
> Where one hour could be some distance determined by the V:EKN local volunteers in association with the national volunteers and applied to all countries equally.
>
While I understand what you're saying, I've never seen or heard of a Spanish player complaining publicly about this issue, so I can only conclude that it isn't an issue or that they took some sort of vote for change and they didn't get enough in favor to change the current system to what you propose.
I'm confused as to why you'd be bringing up another country's system which seems to work well for them. Do you have evidence to the contrary or am I missing something?
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! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
I'm not a decider of things, but let me try to give direct answers since others are avoiding that:
> Adonai wrote:
> Are there any Guidelines for the location of Regional Qualifier Events?
>
NO.
> Adonai wrote:
> Are there plans for the V:EKN to codify some rules around regional qualifiers so that all players will have an equal chance to qualify?
>
NO.
Sounds like it's just a free for all on a country by country basis and that the NCs like this status quo. The differences for Australia (50% instead of 25%) are codified and no one really seems to mind this at all.
Jeff Thompson has a good reason to ask this question: He's been tracking who qualifies for YEARS. Every time there is an event, *HE* is the one who is asking the questions on VEKN about the number of qualifies when the tournament organizers don't list it in their reports. It makes perfect sense that he is keenly aware of the issue: Was event X a "full" qualifier or not?
I normally don't like getting involved in these discussions, but the responses here have seemed pretty dismissive of Adonai's real concerns. He is asking for guidance and is getting nothing substantial. If the V:EKN really is all about tournaments, one would think the answer to his questions would be YES and YES.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
> Jeff wrote:
> I'm not a decider of things, but let me try to give direct answers since others are avoiding that:
>
> > Adonai wrote:
> > Are there any Guidelines for the location of Regional Qualifier Events?
> >
> NO.
>
> > Adonai wrote:
> > Are there plans for the V:EKN to codify some rules around regional qualifiers so that all players will have an equal chance to qualify?
> >
> NO.
>
> Sounds like it's just a free for all on a country by country basis and that the NCs like this status quo. The differences for Australia (50% instead of 25%) are codified and no one really seems to mind this at all.
>
> Jeff Thompson has a good reason to ask this question: He's been tracking who qualifies for YEARS. Every time there is an event, *HE* is the one who is asking the questions on VEKN about the number of qualifies when the tournament organizers don't list it in their reports. It makes perfect sense that he is keenly aware of the issue: Was event X a "full" qualifier or not?
>
> I normally don't like getting involved in these discussions, but the responses here have seemed pretty dismissive of Adonai's real concerns. He is asking for guidance and is getting nothing substantial. If the V:EKN really is all about tournaments, one would think the answer to his questions would be YES and YES.
>
The answers are actually, as you stated right there, "YES", and "YES"(*).
The current guidelines being "It's a country-by-country basis".
Whether this a good guideline or not can be discussed (and that's what Juggernaut1981 and Damnans have been doing).
(*) I'm not sure I really understand what "equal" means in this context.
Each player of an Regional Qualifier Event has equal chances of finishing in the top X% - that's an assumption that HAS to be made, due to the PTW rule (i.e. you're not here to lose games, you're here to win them). If some players don't respect that PTW rule (i.e. some players distorting the event's results), then, yes, the chances of the players of the event aren't equal (for instance, you'd have more chances if you're at the table of a player who's not going to play to win).
I suppose "equal" means "gives everyone in the country the same chances", or perhaps, "... a chance".
EDIT: As France's NC, I get to choose where the Frenh ECQs are.
My current algorithm is : pick a city with players, and with players in a certain radius. Also, try not to pick the same city two years in a row.
I like the Spanish system.
If im reading right, its a qualifier as any other, until its over, and then results become:
Winner/finalists are scored for rankimgs as normal.
Top 25% is then calculated by removing all players who were already qualified at the start of the tourney and then doimg the math.
So, while the too 25% of a 40 person qualifier would still be ten, lets say 4 of the finalists were already qualified. So, the one unqualifoed finalist, plus the nine other players with hihhest results in said qualifier, are qualified.
Right?
For the record, its been years since i felt something like this would help in my part of the states, but 3 years back, it would have helped.
That qualification system was used in France for our National Qualifiers, but its biggest issue is that it's a real pain to track who is already qualified (players tend to forget they are / think they're not).
> Pascal wrote:
> The answers are actually, as you stated right there, "YES", and "YES"(*).
> The current guidelines being "It's a country-by-country basis".
>
> Whether this a good guideline or not can be discussed (and that's what Juggernaut1981 and Damnans have been doing).
>
Ok. Fair enough. But to my knowledge these country-by-country guidelines are not published anywhere. That might not be necessary, but it does make it more difficult for someone to actually track the legitimate qualifiers.
> Pascal wrote:
> (*) I'm not sure I really understand what "equal" means in this context....
>
> I suppose "equal" means "gives everyone in the country the same chances", or perhaps, "... a chance".
>
I would posit that it is also impossible to determine if people are treated "equally" without knowing how the qualification process varies from country to country. And should it?
My understanding, as related to me by local princes who run these things, is that each prince has the opportunity to run a single "qualifier" tournament during the calendar year. All other tournaments are just regular events.
If the system were truly that simple, why not just come out and say it?
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
> Continental wrote:
> However, for countries like France and Spain which split each of their Continental Qualifiers in two events, any players who participate in one of them are also allowed to participate in the other, but:
> They will not be taken into account when calculating the top 25% of players in the other tournament (who would qualify). That means that if the tournament had 20 participants, and one of the players in attendance had already qualified in a previous Continental Qualifier in the same country, for qualifying purposes the tournament would be considered to have 19 participants instead.
> And they will not be able to qualify.
>
It was always there.
And what's in the rules wasn't what Jeff Thomson was askin', I think.
I think his question was how / why things are like that and how can you apply that somewhere else, if needed be?
When I was tracking all the qualified players in 2012, I asked Ben Peal about it because the US (one country) had lots of Continental Qualifiers.
I was completely satisfied with his answer.
Huge distances, many scattered playgroups that can hold 20+ Tournaments.
> Pascal wrote:
> That qualification system was used in France for our National Qualifiers, but its biggest issue is that it's a real pain to track who is already qualified (players tend to forget they are / think they're not).
>
This is why V:EKN dropped that extra tracking for unreported events years ago. Bringing it back is a serious mistake.
It is also a direct violation of the intent of the qualifier rules, quoted here:
> All qualifier tournaments are handled equally regardless of order. Players who qualify in one qualifier are not handled any differently in other qualifiers. They can continue to qualify in each qualifier in which they play.
>
Once the EC 2013 is played, I won't be tracking it any more, so you can try to figure it out when you automate it.
Notice that this is one of the same problems that ranking had, that was also dropped from rankings.
> Adonai wrote:
> Once the EC 2013 is played, I won't be tracking it any more, so you can try to figure it out when you automate it.
>
I'm working on it