Guidelines for the location of Regional Qualifier Events

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?

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.

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).