Winter World Cup WINNER - poweewee (Philippines)

[GreatGonzales]

(01-31-2013 07:11 PM)awpertunity Wrote:  You know what, more I think about it the more I am inclined to go back to the original rule-set. If people had issues with only the top player advancing, this should have been voiced earlier as it has clearly been stated in the rules since the beginning of the tournament.

Otherwise there are going to just be "too many chefs", and I can't put every single parameter of the tournament up to a vote, especially with this many people and prizes involved. I am consulting Adam on the issue now, but once a decision is made it will not be revisited.

Hmm, I really wasn't expecting any sort of backlash to the rule change.

Speaking as someone who will likely win their pool, I am in favor of changing the rules. I am for the maximally fair, inclusive, and efficiently run tournament possible, and I think that tournament would use the rules described under option 3. It's totally a fair point that we - I - should have complained about the rules from the outset. In my case, I guess I was assuming that this tournament would follow more closely in the footsteps of the first World Cup, so I didn't bother to check the rules. Also, am I correct that the rules changed a number of times, as the tournament size increased?

However. If we are not going to change the rules (for the better, I argue), I would like to be made aware of the harm caused by this rule change. It's one thing to discuss changing matches from being best of 1 to, for example, best of 3. That would be an unreasonable rule change. However, all that's being discussed is the level of graduation from the first round of the tournament to the next, something that should not affect play - that is, in my estimation at least. Tournament format is essentially staying the same; we are (essentially) only proposing to change the tournament size. Can someone explain to me why this would negatively impact tournament play? Perhaps a player who sees that the ST in his pool has won all his matches, so he throws the remaining matches and as a result someone else claims the number 2 spot rather than him? This is only scenario I can think of, and it seems unlikely. What is the harm in including more people in the competition?

Again, I'm surprised at the backlash from some. Really? We have 232 players in this tournament; to whittle that number down to just 32 after 1 round of pools is EXTREMELY harsh. Doing so not only excludes some Super Titans from competition, but perhaps more importantly it excludes the excellent players who were skilled but not skilled enough to beat poweewee. For such players, what is their testament in the tournament results? They are relegated to forgettable pool results, and that's not very fun or fair. It's as though we are saying: "Oh, you want to compete in this tournament? Cool, we'll place you with one of the best players in the world, and if you can't beat him you don't get to go to the fun part of the tournament. Sucks to be you."

That being said, it's your show awpertunity.