Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on December 19, 2008, 06:35:16 PM

[YMT's most excellent little rant mostly deleted--mjb]
What happened to the whole "first shall be last" Christian attitude? Why can't we put others' interest before our own? Based on the list of prior Natz, it appears that is exactly what the west coasters have been doing for almost ten years.

Although I would tend to agree with most of the sentiments YMT has expressed, I would point out that the desire to have the largest number of players possible attend Nationals is not a selfish interest. I would prefer it is some way could be to maximize the turnout even given a West Coast location.

Maybe announcing a West Coast Nats for 2010 (barring unforeseen circumstances) at the same time as the 2009 Nats announcement would be a good thing. It would give everyone on this side of the Atlantic continental divide an extra year to arrange vacation schedules or save up a bit extra for flying out. It would also give the West Coast play groups a two year bump for recruitment. Lastly, it would allow the negative nellies a chance to adjust their attitudes a bit.

I'm just spitballin' here.  As I see I was instaposted, I wish JSB23 would let me post my own ideas.

To be honest with you I would like to see a 2 year notice for ALL Nats locations.  This would allow for vacation planning for families to try and attend.  However as for the west coast waiting until 2010 for Nats it may not seem to be a very big deal, but I can tell you the west coast play groups have been desperately needing the excitement of a Nats to really get past the platue for getting new players and keeping veteran players.  We've had some really good players stop playing just because they began to lose interest when they knew they could never have a chance to really match up on the national level for RNRS and oppurtunities to play at Nats.

I know this sounds selfish but if the west can't get a Nats until 2010 I know that I probably wont continue to play much more.  I got really burned out due to the demands of running tourneys all the time with out the hope of ever being able to compete at a Nats.  The guys in the NW are great but were spread out enough where I can only make a few tourneys outside of my area each year.  Its hard to stay excited some times.  I know it sounds selfish and in many ways may be, but I hear about all the good that a Nats tourney has done for other regions and I just want that same oppurtunity to put the west coast and the west coast players on the National Map.

I know some of the top players from around the country may not be able to make it but there are good players on the West who can't make it to other Nats in order to show our skill.  Give us a chance.  We are literally begging at this point......Ok maybe its just me that is begging but I am on my knees.  Heck if the Nats is in CA I'll personally shake every east coast players hand and say thank you for letting us share in the awesomeness that is Nats and thanks for coming.  I would do more but I'm too tired to think of anything better that I can do.

I appreciate people defending me earlier in the thread as to not having a vested interest in the West.  I do live in KY, and have family in Atlanta.  Personally that would be a much better option for me, and I probably won't even be able to attend a Nats in California.  But I still think it is a good idea for the game as a whole.

As for the idea of giving 2 years notice, I think that is not the best plan.  A lot can happen in 2 years.  A playgroup that is strong in an area can disappear by the end of the next.  You could have Nats be announced somewhere and then have to have a last minute switch that no one wants.  Also, people just don't save money for 2 years to attend Nats.  It won't happen.  Nats is usually announced 6 months ahead of time.  If people really want to go, they can save up the money to go in 6 months, and it is unlikely that they would keep up with saving money longer than that anyway.

Lastly as for the idea of having Regional entry fees paying for the winners to go to Nats, I don't think that would be feasible.  A plane ticket to Nats would probably cost $300, and you could have 18 different people finish in the top 3 at Regionals.  Even if you only did 1st place winners, that could be 6 people.  And even if it is a more likely 4 or 5, then you're still talking over $1200 needed.  With a typical attendance at Regionals of 30 people you would have to charge over $40 a person.  There are a lot of people who come to Regionals who know that they aren't going to be winning any events.  They just want to play and hope they might come in 3rd and get some packs.  There's no way they are going to pay $40 in that case.  This would just cause the Regional tournaments to fail.

Was the Natz in New York City a "little east coast party?"

No, but are you considering the reasons for that?  Population density and travel distance for example?

Since then, I have not been able to make either of the other Natz because they were both in the Midwest. I certainly cannot afford a trip half-way across the country.

Midwestern tournaments are not necessarily halfway across the country.  In 2007, you could have flown from Hartford to Kansas City for about fourty bucks a head, round trip.  This past year, Columbus is only a ten hour drive, similar to the drives that midwesterners have regularly made to East Coast tourneys.  By contrast, there is really no major west coast city where you could drive the same distance and even get to the other side of the Rockies.  Maybe Las Vegas, but that's a stretch.  So there's no comparing New York to Cali just because they happen to be next to the blue parts of the map.

Many people will not be able to travel no matter where Natz is held. Why not let the west coast have their first (and with present sentiment, perhaps only) Natz?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a location that is more economical for more people, and have a West Coast nats when the economy is on an upswing and more people can go out there to put butts in seats?  Take it from a tourney host who was sweating his numbers all the way until 8am Thursday morning.

What happened to the whole "first shall be last" Christian attitude? Why can't we put others' interest before our own?

Some people are looking for the best solution for the greatest number of people.  Not every opinion about where to have a tournament is based on personal, selfish desires.

Economic downtime = bad time for nationals in any location.  It is exactly why I used a central location as an example.

And I'm not aware of anyone saying that breaking attendance records was the goal for Nationals.

Again, numbers should not be the most important detail.

I didn't say numbers were the most important detail.  I said that the location should be as universally feasible as possible given a set of circumstances.  Neither would I recommend a Nationals in London just because England has never had one and there are 5 people over there who have never been allowed to host.

Your opinion is selfish for the exact reasons you gave above: it is still too far for the west-coasters - "more than halfway across the country" were your words.

...uuuummmm... hhhhow does that make me selfish?  What personal gain do I seek for having the Nationals in any particular location, West Coast or not?

I think there needs to be a consideration of a whole segment of Redemption loyalists who have thus far been pushed aside for the convenience of others. It's the west coast's time and that time is now.

Ultimately, only the people who submit a bid are going to be considered in the first place, and among them Rob will choose whom he chooses.  So the considerations of people on this thread mostly have the weight of a ball of stomach lint.  Everybody has places they would like to see the tournament but if Flagstaff submits a bid and no one else does, the nationals will be in Flagstaff.  In the meantime, your criticism of other board members as being selfish and neglectful is more than a bit harsh considering the topic.

Hmmmm....... so I'm not allowed to compare a west coast Natz to a NYC Natz, but you are allowed to compare one to London?

I am not comparing anything to London.  I am calling your logic into question.

Ummm..... you would get to go?

Whether I get to go is a decision made each individual year based on home finances, without regard for the location.  So this is a very poor answer, especially when presented with virtually no information that is relevant to my situation.

So you are suggesting that the west coast has never submitted a bid?

I am not suggesting anything.  If you want to know what I'm saying, just look at the words I wrote down and you're in good shape.  I have no information about whether the West Coast has submitted a bid, this year or any other.  Neither do you.  My point, which you seem too busy trying to turn my words around to grasp, is that if the West Coast does NOT submit a bid this year, they are not going to get a tournament this year regardless of the state of the economy or your notion of what's "fair".

FWIW, my "selfish" remark was directed originally at the people who were giving selfish reasons.

Except you've lumped my remark in among selfish ones and now defended that accusation as well.  If my reasons for doing this are deemed selfish, then I submit that there's not a single motivation here that could be deemed unselfish by that standard.

You were comparing the bid of a west coaster to that of a Londoner, "just because England has never had one." I am calling your logic into question.

No you're not.  You're accusing me of being a hypocrite.

I was talking about why the West Coast deserves a NAtz and you were countering my position. I agree with what I just quoted, but submitting a bid hasn't done them any good so far.

Are you certain they've submitted any?  Again, that is information that I do not have.  People lobbied for a Columbus nationals ever since Minneapolis '05 but it took us three years to put something together.  Anyone who assumed in the meantime that Columbus was getting turned down would be drawing poor conclusions.

The remark that you orginially quoted was my response to Ring Wraith, whose answer was selfish. You then quoted me and ran with it.

I said that not everyone has a selfish reason for wanting nationals to be on (or not) the West Coast.  You responded by directly accusing me of having a selfish reason.

So far the only challenge to that has been "geographic suitability" and "numbers." I find those reasons to be selfish, at this point of the discussion, as a response to "Why not the west coast?"

Arguing to geographic suitability is not selfish unless it is argued as "we can't have Nats there cause I can't go".  I'm not going to apologize for including it among a list of factors that I think are important when speculating on the best location for the best collection of players (which is not based strictly on numbers).  If I was going to argue ONLY geography, I'd say have it in Columbus every year, because it's the most central in terms of proximity to population centers, has a major airport hub, is relatively inexpensive, and I will be very happy to organize it every year they want to have it here.  The stated objective by Rob of moving it around from year to year precludes such an argument, so I don't give geography its due.

This isn't about you and me, Schaef, so I don't want the back and forth. Don't you agree that they should get it at least once?

If you read my posts, you will see that not only have I said so, but I even recommended doing so during an upswing when they can garner better attendance.  I even pointed to my own hosting experience as evidence that they would benefit more by having more people on the year they host it.  The thing is, you haven't been arguing that they should have it "at least once".  You've been arguing that they MUST have it NOW or ELSE.  So I don't see the point in appealing to an agreement on something that's not at all the point of the discussion.

Gentlemen I'm not a moderator so I have no power but I do have a great deal of respect for both of you for all that you do for redemption but the two of you do need to stop.  We are all capable of having our own opinions and I do not believe anyone opinion about location for Nats is better then another but I feel you two are beginning to take this discussion in a completely different direction then that of where we want Nats to be.  I do want Nats in California but I don't want to discuss it in a manner that does not give the proper respect to ALL individuals.  This discussion has gone to far and it needs to stop. I am not saying this as a redemption player but as a Pastor who does not see how this benefits any of us.  I also don't see this part of the discussion helping Rob make a decision.  In fact I see an argument, and this is an argument, like this to only make things harder on Rob.

Once again I'm not a moderator but this needs to stop.  Please don't feel that I am taking anyones side.  Many have crossed the line and it needs to stop.

wow to stand on the sidelines and watch to adults flame is an incredible site

Especially a chief moderator.   

you guys are acting like babeys just accpt where ever it's at.

you guys are acting like babeys just accpt where ever it's at.

RED, I'll say it again. watch  yourself. to warn people is okay, to call them names is not.

GO IOWA!

i was not calling names ring waith!

ther are

Schaef, I understand your not in the wrong(Noris YMT).  I just get really tired of arguing, and your usually in it.  I know that you don't do it to be mean.  I was just a little mad at the time...

Quote from: RED on December 24, 2008, 11:10:53 AM

ther are

what's ther?

That was a really tiny spelling mistake.  There wasn't really a need to point it out...