Hello,

A few guys are working on designing a yearly LGS tournament system for a whole year. The idea is to have monthly tournaments in both modern and standard. So you can attend 2 FNMs a month and gather points and compete for a place in the top 8 at the end of the year.

In my conversations with one of the guys he told me that they (the organization, to my knowledge, consisting of 3 guys) want to take the top 3 of each format to place them for the top 8. That is 6. The remaining two will be selected on having attended the most events. I think this is a very cool thing from a commercial point of view and it's not nessacarily bad. Everyone has the same chance to attent all tournaments. The last spot is wrong in my opinion. They want to select someone who has been most friendly, cool and sportsman like.

I tried to explain that this is not an objective way to select someone since not everyone is there to be the most friendly, they come to compete and have a nice time in that way, and you cannot punish people for that. Also being friendly is very, very subjective, since 3 people have to like you and this is simply not something in which everyone has the same chance. Giving someone a prize based on something that cannot be measured, does feel very wrong.

My question is: are there any rules against this way of selecting a ‘winner’? Ofcourse we have rules about not being allowed in a match to win with aspects that are not related to the game, but I do not know any strong arguments that are backed by the rules or judge program that are against such a way of selecting a competitor for a yearly playoff.

All these tournaments are regular, maybe not even sanctioned, I am not super sure about it, since I will not be the head judge in these events and maybe only be on the floor on occasion if no one else is there.

Thank you!
Selene

If it's completely unsanctioned, WOTC doesn't try to control what the TO does. If it is sanctioned, the MTR only has this to say:

Tournament Organizers may hold and sanction invitation-only non-Premier tournaments normally, as long as they offer a sufficient number of qualifying tournaments in advance to ensure that all players have a chance to qualify.

I'm guessing that this system would be fine, but as always, the best thing to do is contact the store's WPN representative.

Edited Isaac King (Dec. 26, 2018 04:59:40 PM)

Thanx for your reply. I will try to find that person.

The definition of “chance to qualify” is not very much explained here so that makes it difficult.

I just heard that it will be sanctioned.

While Isaac's answer is essentially correct, it was not correct for any unofficial source to provide anything other than (clearly labeled) opinions. While this may seem like a harsh and unnecessary condemnation of good intentions, my purpose is both correct and honorable.

For details, however, I'm going to suggest that everyone - yes, you! - read (or re-read yet again) the forum protocol. Ideally, everyone reads that before they submit their first post; in fact, in that ideal world, the judge that mentors you as you become a judge should insist you read that ASAP.

Done reading? no?? I'll wait…

…

OK, now, a quick summary: when unofficial sources post “answers”, an ‘O’fficial source (e.g., me) has to come along and either repeat most of what was said, or refer back to that unofficial post. This both clutters the forums (and some judges Inboxes) and makes it harder to use the Search function to find ‘O’fficial answers; it may even make it harder to recognize an Official answer when it gets posted. And, it also encourages others to start posting “answers”, which just exacerbates the problem.

Oh, and - Issac's correct. Unsanctioned events do not have to follow the Magic Tournament Rules. In general, TOs are discouraged from awarding Byes and holding invite-only (i.e., not “open to all”) events - for sanctioned events. And yes, contacting the WPN rep for the store is always a good idea, when considering trying out something you haven't seen done before - there may be a reason no one's doing it (or it might just be the coolest new idea ever!).

d:^D

Scott, could you elaborate on what part of this thread violates the forum protocol? I'm not clear on where your objection lies. (Or is it that I'm seeing this thread after moderation has already removed the offending context?)

Rebecca, it's the part where a non-fficial source responds.
Questions in this part of the forum get an fficial reply, which may
spark discussion, but that reply should be the first reply.

Op vr 28 dec. 2018 om 07:18 schreef Rebecca Lawrence <

Scott, please cite the exact text from the forum protocol which supports your reproach of Isaac's comments. I have read through it twice and am unable to find it. The only forum in which threads are automatically locked pending an Official answer is the Rules Q&A forum. This question however is in the Regular REL forum, concerning which the protocol says the following:

Regular REL
Questions and discussions surrounding Regular REL. While Official answers will be given if asked, this is a general discussion forum specifically about Regular REL events, JAR documents and anything else relating to Regular REL.

I point out that:
1. The original poster did not specifically request only an “O” answer, and
2. Even when an “O” answer is requested, the protocol does not prohibit others from answering first (as you seem to think), it just says that an “O” answer will be given. It also highlights that this is a general discussion forum.

Edited Robert Hinrichsen (Dec. 28, 2018 11:20:43 AM)

I'd like to note that I've been a large fan of Scott's shift of attitude in
answering forum questions, as well as just the change towards requiring ‘O’
answers for any questions not explicitly aimed at creating discussion. I
would welcome a change to the forum protocol over an adherence to the
previous rules.

pt., 28 gru 2018 o 08:38 Robert Hinrichsen <

Originally posted by Robert Hinrichsen:

Scott, please cite the exact text from the forum protocol which supports your reproach of Isaac's comments.

Originally posted by Forum Protocol:

Currently only the following judges can issue Official Rulings:

Scott Marshall
Toby Elliott
Nathan Long
Callum Milne

By default, rulings made by these judges are considered to be Official, unless those judges specifically state that the ruling they are giving is not Official.

Wizards of the Coast staff can also issue Official Rulings.

The language has morphed and even relaxed some over the years, and the objections I was raising are really only implied, not at all clearly stated.

Note that whether or not the original post requests an ‘O’fficial Answer ('O') is not what determines the need for an official answer. That remains subjective, and Forum Moderators often lock posts that, at least to us, strongly suggest that an ‘O’ is appropriate.

Note also that this feedback is going to be instrumental in some upcoming changes within these forums. Stay tuned for exciting improvements!

d:^D