What is the reasoning behind CC's rule that....

[Jippd]

2000+ is as high as tournament limits can be set? As the tournament director you do most of the work, why can I not run any type of tournament I want? If I want that to be a 2500+ tournament why shouldn't I be allowed to? I don't think that it would make any fewer tournaments, if anything I'm guessing it would make more. A lot of high ranks don't play tournaments because of the worry about losing points. Why not be allowed to do a 10000+ points quads tourney a 2500+ singles tourney or a 5000+ dubs tourney for example? As long as you can get enough participants to fill it in a month and it follows all the other rules I fail to see why there should be a restriction on the point restriction.

Can someone answer the reasoning behind this for me or direct me to where the answer is?

[Lindax]

2000+ is as high as tournament limits can be set? As the tournament director you do most of the work, why can I not run any type of tournament I want? If I want that to be a 2500+ tournament why shouldn't I be allowed to? I don't think that it would make any fewer tournaments, if anything I'm guessing it would make more. A lot of high ranks don't play tournaments because of the worry about losing points. Why not be allowed to do a 10000+ points quads tourney a 2500+ singles tourney or a 5000+ dubs tourney for example? As long as you can get enough participants to fill it in a month and it follows all the other rules I fail to see why there should be a restriction on the point restriction.

Can someone answer the reasoning behind this for me or direct me to where the answer is?

Pretty simple answer to that. The members of CC with 2500 points or more are such a small percentage of the membership that it is considered too exclusionary to run public tournaments for only those members.

However, you're free to run private tournaments with whatever restrictions you like.

And let's face it: How many more points would you lose to a Major?

Lx

[barterer2002]

Also, you aren't the Tournament Director, you are the Tournament organizer. Tournament Directors are those guys with gold names.

[Jippd]

Also, you aren't the Tournament Director, you are the Tournament organizer. Tournament Directors are those guys with gold names.

Lol sorry obviously that wasn't the main point of the thread but thank you for pointing out the difference

[chapcrap]

What Lx and bart said are both true.

As of now there are 380 people at 2500 or higher. I would say that number could fluctuate between 360-400 or so. That's less than 3% of the total scoreboard right now. That number is higher than when the rule was put into place (March of 2010 it was around 1%), but still fairly low.

[Jippd]

And let's face it: How many more points would you lose to a Major?

Lx

My best estimate is an average of about 25% more

[chapcrap]

And let's face it: How many more points would you lose to a Major?

Lx

My best estimate is an average of about 25% more

If you played someone equal to you, you'd lose 20 points. If you lost to someone at 2500 right now, you'd lose 24 points. If you lost to someone at 2000 right now you'd lose 30 points. So, the difference from Allowing Majors and above instead of Colonels and above is about 6 points per game.

[Jippd]

Seems I'm a pretty good best estimator 25% on the dot

The point is that I like to play 1 v 1...but I don't like to play it the more points I get because the scoring system on CC does not make it worthwhile to play 1 v 1 against people not close to your points. I'm sure there are many over 2500 that feel that way that might like to play a 1 v 1 tournament. I'm sure at least 16...that was the point of me asking.

[Butters1919]

Although I would not qualify to run in the tourney's suggested, I fail to see why this would be a problem. Much like the controversial tourney seeking out only female players. I've seen tourney's posted in the past that had a maximum number of games played, points earned. They failed to obtain enough entrants and they were cancelled. How is this any different? If a tourney with a max score can be posted, why not one with a minimum score? As a TO, I'll always accept anyone into my tourney's, but I certainly have no objections to tourney's that post such restrictions.

[Night Strike]

Although I would not qualify to run in the tourney's suggested, I fail to see why this would be a problem. Much like the controversial tourney seeking out only female players. I've seen tourney's posted in the past that had a maximum number of games played, points earned. They failed to obtain enough entrants and they were cancelled. How is this any different? If a tourney with a max score can be posted, why not one with a minimum score? As a TO, I'll always accept anyone into my tourney's, but I certainly have no objections to tourney's that post such restrictions.

If you debate to change a policy, please make sure that you know what the current policies actually state. Tournaments with a minimum required score ARE allowed. Currently that minimum is set at no more than 2000 points per player (or average).



And there is no need to raise the minimum at this time. Only 2.2% of the active members are over 2500 points. When we instituted the 2000 point restriction, that level had 4.7% of the active members above it. The 2500 point plateau needs to reach at least that level before I will consider it.