NAC 2008 Day 1
The Lasombra
There are 12 players playing in a Keepers of Tradition Draft.
LSJ
> There are 57 players competing in the first round of the NAC.
... and the top 25 will go on to Day 2.
xcver
> 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
James Coupe
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.
Frederick Scott
"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
xcver
James Coupe schrieb:
Jeff Kuta
...and I just saw this message now at 9:30am, Mon 27 Oct.
Go google groups!
Jeff
Blooded Sand
43%?
Blooded Sand
> 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?
Peter D Bakija
<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
Matthew T. Morgan
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
hugh.an...@gmail.com
>
> 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
Anthony Coleman
hugh.angsees...@gmail.com wrote:
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
Peter D Bakija
<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.
Matthew T. Morgan
> 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
Izaak
> 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.
Salem
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
LSJ
> 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.
James Coupe
<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.
Kevin M.
> "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/
Kevin M.
> 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. ;)
Salem
> 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
?
Jozxyqk
> > 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?
Bleu
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.
Peter D Bakija
> 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
Peter D Bakija
> 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
Frederick Scott
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
Matthew T. Morgan
>> 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.
Peter D Bakija
> 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
Kevin M.
>> 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.
Morgan Vening
<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
Bleu
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.
LSJ
> 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.
Peter D Bakija
> 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
LSJ
> 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.
coincoi...@hotmail.com
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.
hugh.an...@gmail.com
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.
James Coupe
.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.
Frederick Scott
news:09077348-a9b7-48d8...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com......
> > It strikes me as a perfectly reasonable compromise
> > to have a LCQ at a championship be all non qualified players.
>
> 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
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
hugh.an...@gmail.com
>
> 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.
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.
ira...@gmail.com
> 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
Peter D Bakija
"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
Kevin M.
> 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.
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.
The Lasombra
>> 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.....
Frederick Scott
"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
Frederick Scott
"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f0avg491vonrqn5mf...@4ax.com...
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
The Lasombra
>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.
Frederick Scott
"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:o8cvg4p3p970444r8...@4ax.com...
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
The Lasombra
>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
Your best online source for information about V:TES.
Now also featuring individual card sales and sales
of booster and starter box displays.
Frederick Scott
> 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
James Coupe
<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?
Chris Berger
> 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!
>
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...
Peter D Bakija
> 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
witness1
> 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
Frederick Scott
news:1dd06dea-232a-4d60...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
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
Frederick Scott
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!!!
witness1
> "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
Frederick Scott
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