Another CSI decision thread

BJTyler said:

Did the badminton players have to pay? perhaps not directly, but I guarantee you that the monies invested by the players & national federations in getting a team qualified into the Olympic games combined with the travel expenses and potential rewards of medaling DWARF those of playing in the CSI 8-ball invitational.

Click to expand...

that doesnt change the fact that he played in a tournament. we're talking about whether or not this is simply just an invitational and i'm saying that it's not because there was an entry fee. what those badminton players did to qualify is irrelevant as are the amounts of money they may or may not have put in to get to their level of proficiency. i'm specifically asking if they had to pay for play in the invitational. ko did so it wasn't simply just an invitational. he had to actually pay money to play in it. travel expense etc. are not the point as getting an invitation and showing up do not get you in the tournament. you have to pay to play.

BJTyler said:

Please re-read my comment, you are making a critical leap in logic by assuming that any forfeit => a bye, as I stated, this has NOT been the case in between stages of a multi-stage tournament.

Click to expand...

and you should re-read my comments. i am stating that because they had to pay to play, then a forfeit should be a bye. you are comparing a multi stage tournament with no entry fee to one that has entry fees where the participant has to pay to play. furthermore those tournaments have specific rules and guidelines that stipulates what happens in these situations whereas this one clearly did not so it's unfair for ko to be forced to play. now if that's what the director considered is the best decision then it is what it is. but this was clearly something that should have been part of the tournament rules. guys showing up late, not showing up etc. is not unheard of. if anything instead of forcing ko to play they should have forced souquet to play and held his money if he refused.

to your point, if souquet forfeited then that means the match is over i.e. ko wins 12-0 or whatever the race is. it's registered as an official win which means ko goes to the finals. if souquet didn't forfeit then he didnt officially finish the tournament so he shouldnt have gotten paid since he had no finishing position. you can't have a forfeit and give him money for finishing but then say his match never occurred and send shane in there to take his place. you dont run into this problem in normal tournaments cuz there's no entry fee or prize money, but in this case it's pretty clear to me that you can't do it both ways. either souquet takes the loss and gets money or he didn't play/finish and doesnt get the money in which case shane can take his spot.

BJTyler said:

The rest of your post is speculative without evidence, but I generally agree that there should not be double standards

Click to expand...

that's why i qualified it by saying if that story is true. although considering some people that were there have said that he was forced to play it seems that something did happen that prevented ko from being able to refuse to play.

What if it was Shane denied the bye???

boogeyman said:

Mark presented a product (a service) with the money he garnered.
If we chose to patronize that service, there is only one caveat emptor:

so long as the basic service you paid for is rendered,
none of us should complain as to HOW that service was rendered.

That is up to the owner (Mark). It's his product, It's his business.
If we can't run our own businesses in this country,
then what good is it to invest our resources to get that business??!!

I now see the fallacy of anyone pointing fingers at Mark.
Let him run his business the way he chooses!!!!!!!
THIS IS AMERICA!!

End of story!

Click to expand...

This issue is about JUSTICE!

Would the same action have been taken if it was SHANE getting the forfeit and KO was runner up of Ralph's bracket???

How do we as society determine if something is ETHICAL???

These questions should not EXIST!!! This board and PUBLIC outrage is paramount in facilitating JUSTICE. It being hashed out in the public and brought under public scrutiny allows the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION to guide us democratically.

If this happened in ASIA and shane was treated in this manner the OUTRAGE would be unprecedented. With that said, I can only lobby on behalf of what I think is right and how I would feel if the situation was reversed and the event was in ASIA and a USA player was treated in this manner. I would be outraged and have to be consistent and be just as outraged when a USA event mistreats a foreign player.

Yes this is America! But, come on people! Be uniform in your position on issues. Ok as long as it ain't happening to an AMERICAN!!!

KD

Danktrees said:

that doesnt change the fact that he played in a tournament. we're talking about whether or not this is simply just an invitational and i'm saying that it's not because there was an entry fee. what those badminton players did to qualify is irrelevant as are the amounts of money they may or may not have put in to get to their level of proficiency. i'm specifically asking if they had to pay for play in the invitational. ko did so it wasn't simply just an invitational. he had to actually pay money to play in it. travel expense etc. are not the point as getting an invitation and showing up do not get you in the tournament. you have to pay to play.

and you should re-read my comments. i am stating that because they had to pay to play, then a forfeit should be a bye. you are comparing a multi stage tournament with no entry fee to one that has entry fees where the participant has to pay to play. furthermore those tournaments have specific rules and guidelines that stipulates what happens in these situations whereas this one clearly did not so it's unfair for ko to be forced to play. now if that's what the director considered is the best decision then it is what it is. but this was clearly something that should have been part of the tournament rules. guys showing up late, not showing up etc. is not unheard of. if anything instead of forcing ko to play they should have forced souquet to play and held his money if he refused.

to your point, if souquet forfeited then that means the match is over i.e. ko wins 12-0 or whatever the race is. it's registered as an official win which means ko goes to the finals. if souquet didn't forfeit then he didnt officially finish the tournament so he shouldnt have gotten paid since he had no finishing position. you can't have a forfeit and give him money for finishing but then say his match never occurred and send shane in there to take his place. you dont run into this problem in normal tournaments cuz there's no entry fee or prize money, but in this case it's pretty clear to me that you can't do it both ways. either souquet takes the loss and gets money or he didn't play/finish and doesnt get the money in which case shane can take his spot.

that's why i qualified it by saying if that story is true. although considering some people that were there have said that he was forced to play it seems that something did happen that prevented ko from being able to refuse to play.

Click to expand...

You seem to be making a distinction between whether this was a tournament or an invitational. And you seem to be defining this distinction by whether there was an entry fee or not.

I agree with neither premise.

The two terms - tournament and invitational - are NOT mutually exclusive. And the payment of an entry fee defines neither.

There are some tournaments that are invitationals: Masters Golf Tournament, CSI 8 ball
Some that are open to all: World Series of Poker, US Open 9ball
Some that are open to few (invitees + qualifiers): WPA 9ball, US open Golf

Furthermore some have no entry fee (The Masters, the Olympics) while others have an entry fee (US Open, World 14.1), while others have entry fees for some and not others.

But regardless of whether a tournament is an invitational, open,or mixed with or without an entry fee, they all have a responsibility to conduct themselves fairly. This primarily means following the rules that have been explicitly stated. However, the reality is that there are always potential contingencies for which no explicit rule exists. In these events, TDs generally rely upon what has been done before.

Thus, the point of my badminton analogy!!! That was a major international tournament that was conducted in a format similar to the CSI 8ball and had a similar contingency that was adjudicated similarly.

You seem to think there is some absolute standard for how a tournament should be run. e.g. any forfeit must result in a bye. WHERE IS THIS WRITTEN? PLEASE show me the CSI 8ball invitational handbook that explicitly states that in the event of a forfeit by a group qualifier a bye will result during the semifinals of the knockout stage.

Or PLEASE show me where this has happened before. (a group qualifier forfeiting prior to the knockout stage beginning and a bye was issued)

The production of either will greatly enhance your position.

Finally, regarding the payment of prize money. If Mark Griffin wants to dig into his own pockets and pay Souquet more than he's entitled to, that's his choice. And as long as everyone else got paid what they were entitled to it shouldn't matter one iota. Personally, if I was in Mark Griffin's shoes, Souquet would not have received one red nickel. Or at best he would have received the minimum.

Please see my replies below.

Kid Dynomite said:

This issue is about JUSTICE!
- I agree, and unlike many others I think this issue is important and worthy of debate.

Would the same action have been taken if it was SHANE getting the forfeit and KO was runner up of Ralph's bracket???
- I would certainly hope so, otherwise it is clearly wrong.

How do we as society determine if something is ETHICAL???

These questions should not EXIST!!! This board and PUBLIC outrage is paramount in facilitating JUSTICE. It being hashed out in the public and brought under public scrutiny allows the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION to guide us democratically.
- interestingly enough, according to an AZB poll, a slight majority seems to believe justice was in fact done.


If this happened in ASIA and shane was treated in this manner the OUTRAGE would be unprecedented.
-I don't know how you know this. I can only speak for myself and I would feel absolutely the same.


With that said, I can only lobby on behalf of what I think is right and how I would feel if the situation was reversed and the event was in ASIA and a USA player was treated in this manner. I would be outraged and have to be consistent and be just as outraged when a USA event mistreats a foreign player.
- You believe you would act consistently and I am in no position to question you, I also feel I would act consistently. So why do you feel inclined to question the integrity/consistency of those with opposing views?

Yes this is America! But, come on people! Be uniform in your position on issues. Ok as long as it ain't happening to an AMERICAN!!!
- again I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that we would not be uniform

KD

Click to expand...

boogeyman said:

Mark presented a product (a service) with the money he garnered.
If we chose to patronize that service, there is only one caveat emptor:

so long as the basic service you paid for is rendered,
none of us should complain as to HOW that service was rendered.

That is up to the owner (Mark). It's his product, It's his business.
If we can't run our own businesses in this country,
then what good is it to invest our resources to get that business??!!

I now see the fallacy of anyone pointing fingers at Mark.
Let him run his business the way he chooses!!!!!!!
THIS IS AMERICA!!

End of story!

Click to expand...

Yep this is America and AZB where unlike CSI we can speak up and not worry about getting banned ,,


1

BJTyler said:

Please see my replies below.

Click to expand...

"- again I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that we would not be uniform"

Very easy to answer!

The abundance of varying opinions leads me to believe that there is a lack of UNIFORMITY in this society/forum on the issue of justice and what constitutes it! The POLL reflects that most vividly.

The Shane Fan club has been in full force on this forum for a very long time and ASSUMING a massive amount of OUTRAGE if the situation was reversed and an ASIA tournament did the same thing to Shane in the same manner is pretty logical and FAIR to deduce!!!

I hope that fairly explains how I would "Know" or deduce this opinion.

KD

So, out of the 3 people that are upset about this, how many would've gotten in Ralph's face for forfeiting out of a tournament he planned poorly for, screwing over 3 other people that paid an entry and also travelled? Yep, none. :boring2:

This is why I've yet to give any effort to starting a tournament, because I couldn't deal with all of the damn crybabies. No matter what you do, you're going to have a tissue shortage by the end of the night. I don't pay people, or provide them with opportunities, to give me a headache.

Your original statement

Yes this is America! But, come on people! Be uniform in your position on issues. Ok as long as it ain't happening to an AMERICAN!!!

Kid Dynomite said:

"- again I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that we would not be uniform"

Very easy to answer!

The abundance of varying opinions leads me to believe that there is a lack of UNIFORMITY in this society/forum on the issue of justice and what constitutes it! The POLL reflects that most vividly.
- sorry, of course all Americans would not be uniform in our opinions, i.e. share the same opinion. But I believe that most people's opinions would be uniform across the two scenarios you presented. Based upon your original statement -above- I believe it was fair to assume you were referring to the latter type of uniformity.

The Shane Fan club has been in full force on this forum for a very long time and ASSUMING a massive amount of OUTRAGE if the situation was reversed and an ASIA tournament did the same thing to Shane in the same manner is pretty logical and FAIR to deduce!!!
- Insofar as any Assumption can be logically deduced?????, I guess I can agree. Or at least you can assume I agree.

I hope that fairly explains how I would "Know" or deduce this opinion.
- no it did not. It did however explain why you might make the assumptions you did.
KD

Click to expand...

However, I find your stance of positing your integrity while questioning that of others to be extremely arrogant and distasteful.

Ralf likes spicy chicken. Had to go getsome.

WHERE DO YOU KEEP QUOTING THEY PAID AN ENTRY?


They did not pay an entry fee.

And it was a standard to fill the bracket when going from the Round Robin Round to the Knock-out Round.

IF the change was made after the Knock Out round had played OR started a match that would be one thing BUT this was before the Knock Out round started so STANDARD PROTOCOL!

Ralf had been trying to get the ticket changed but it was too expensive, not just a few dollars but in the Thousands.

NOW Get on with Pool - I'm sure Mark will address when they get some rest and the office put back together. Mark has NEVER ducked - He is Straight UP and Head ON!

BJTyler said:

Your original statement

Yes this is America! But, come on people! Be uniform in your position on issues. Ok as long as it ain't happening to an AMERICAN!!!





However, I find your stance of positing your integrity while questioning that of others to be extremely arrogant and distasteful.

Click to expand...

This is not about "ME" !!!

I mentioned this issue or ANALOGY to promote thought and let members ponder the issue it created and ask the valid question of themselves would they feel the same way if it was

"an ASIA tournament treating Shane in this manner?"

Would the tournament have issued Shane the bye if him and KO were in opposing positions or would he have to play to get his his money???

These are all thought PROVOKING statements, intended for members to ponder and reflect on. I mentioned my thoughts while asking the question and not in condemnation of anyone who may flip flop on the issue!!! I am not sitting in judgement of anyone despite the nasty comment.

I am sorry that we do not live in a utopia and I am not that naive to believe people on this forum are not biased in some way! I hope they are all capable of reaching a neutral and unbiased opinion on the scenario. Operative word hoping!!!

KD

wrickyb said:

WHERE DO YOU KEEP QUOTING THEY PAID AN ENTRY?


They did not pay an entry fee.

And it was a standard to fill the bracket when going from the Round Robin Round to the Knock-out Round.

IF the change was made after the Knock Out round had played OR started a match that would be one thing BUT this was before the Knock Out round started so STANDARD PROTOCOL!

Ralf had been trying to get the ticket changed but it was too expensive, not just a few dollars but in the Thousands.

NOW Get on with Pool - I'm sure Mark will address when they get some rest and the office put back together. Mark has NEVER ducked - He is Straight UP and Head ON!

Click to expand...

Hate to burst your bubble but there was an entry fee, it wasn't cheap either. 1k per event.

Typical round robin knock out stage implies a stage in which you play for a qualifying spot of a separate paying tournament bracket. In this case, the knock out stage was part of the same tournament, evident by the place and prize money received by the round robin finishers.

So how does someone who already finished in a place where prize money is assigned, get resurrected to play for more money. Shane was loose and firing in the semis, hard not to when you are on a free-roll.

wrickyb said:

WHERE DO YOU KEEP QUOTING THEY PAID AN ENTRY?


They did not pay an entry fee.

And it was a standard to fill the bracket when going from the Round Robin Round to the Knock-out Round.

IF the change was made after the Knock Out round had played OR started a match that would be one thing BUT this was before the Knock Out round started so STANDARD PROTOCOL!

Ralf had been trying to get the ticket changed but it was too expensive, not just a few dollars but in the Thousands.

NOW Get on with Pool - I'm sure Mark will address when they get some rest and the office put back together. Mark has NEVER ducked - He is Straight UP and Head ON!

Click to expand...

Ya he probably needs a lot of rest to give that 10 second explanation that should have been given at the time of the decision ,,

1

invitational

Just a quick comment. I have no clue where anyone gets the idea that invitationals don't require an entry fee. I have participated in many that did. So far I have participated in one invitational that was free.

The only thing that invitational means in today's world is that there is a limited field. Sometimes people have to be invited or qualify, sometimes they can nominate themselves until the field is filled.

Carry on with the rest of the debate, about invitationals too if you must but that issue is truly moot.

Hu

If you add up the amounts won by each player for the 10ball event, the total is $32k, and it was advertised as $16k added.

So yeah, definitely a $1k entry fee.

Either that or they advertised wrong, and actually added more.

Kid Dynomite said:

If this happened in ASIA and shane was treated in this manner the OUTRAGE would be unprecedented.
...
Yes this is America! But, come on people! Be uniform in your position on issues. Ok as long as it ain't happening to an AMERICAN!!!

KD

Click to expand...

Kid Dynomite said:

This is not about "ME" !!!

I mentioned this issue or ANALOGY to promote thought and let members ponder the issue it created and ask the valid question of themselves would they feel the same way if it was

"an ASIA tournament treating Shane in this manner?"

Would the tournament have issued Shane the bye if him and KO were in opposing positions or would he have to play to get his his money???

These are all thought PROVOKING statements, intended for members to ponder and reflect on. I mentioned my thoughts while asking the question and not in condemnation of anyone who may flip flop on the issue!!! I am not sitting in judgement of anyone despite the nasty comment.

I am sorry that we do not live in a utopia and I am not that naive to believe people on this forum are not biased in some way! I hope they are all capable of reaching a neutral and unbiased opinion on the scenario. Operative word hoping!!!

KD

Click to expand...

KD,

Thought provoking questions, challenging hypotheticals, and well informed opinions are the center of all productive discussions. However, when your opinions are accusatory and incendiary (in Red above), I think it is your responsibility to provide some evidence that supports your opinion. For example, can you point to other instances where the AZB crowd has flip-flopped and exhibited outrage in a logically inconsistent manner in support of SVB or American players? If so, I may be inclined to agree with you and more importantly it informs the debate productively.

However, in the absence of such evidence, your opinions only "fan the flames" of an unproductive argument.

I agree with you that there is surely a group of both SVB "fanboys" and "haters" on AZB that will ignore any and all evidence and simply plant their flags instinctively for their "side". However, I -like you- hope most people are reasonably principled in their opinions.

In this particular case, among reasonable people, it seems that there is an ideological divide between people who either believe:

A. that this was a multi-staged tournament that allowed a number of factors to enter into the advancement process, including win loss record, head-to-head record, rack differential, and yes, even the forfeiture of another player.

-or-

B. that regardless of whether this was a single or multi stage tournament, as soon as Ralf won his bracket, everyone else in the group was eliminated and therefore no longer eligible to return.

I think these are two reasonable views that can be adjudicated through a combination of a) what was explicity written, b) what was implied, c) what is the precedent. This is a tractable debate.

So what is my dog in this fight? Yes, I am an SVB fan, but no more so than Efren, Dennis, or probably my favorite Darren. Do I root for Americans, Sure; but when competing as individuals, I'll root for the player I like the best - nationality notwithstanding. When attending or watching the Mosconi Cup, I of course root for America, but I make sure to clap for all players.

My dog in this fight is that I want to see Pool succeed. I think events like the CSI invitational can do wonders for our sport. They have the potential to catapult this game back into the mainstream. There is no reason why the CSI invitational can't become sort of an international Mosconi Cup...on American Soil.

And when I read some of the inflammatory posts strewn across these threads, I can't help but think this will surely encourage CSI to end this event. And that would be a shame for all involved...players, customers, fans.

Having said this, it does not mean that CSI can run their event with impunity. They should strive to promote fairness in all events, increase transparency, and in general improve their product. Customer feedback is an incredibly effective tool towards that end.

So on that note, let's keep the criticism constructive, reasoned, and informed.

BJTyler said:

KD,

Thought provoking questions, challenging hypotheticals, and well informed opinions are the center of all productive discussions. However, when your opinions are accusatory and incendiary (in Red above), I think it is your responsibility to provide some evidence that supports your opinion. For example, can you point to other instances where the AZB crowd has flip-flopped and exhibited outrage in a logically inconsistent manner in support of SVB or American players? If so, I may be inclined to agree with you and more importantly it informs the debate productively.

However, in the absence of such evidence, your opinions only "fan the flames" of an unproductive argument.

I agree with you that there is surely a group of both SVB "fanboys" and "haters" on AZB that will ignore any and all evidence and simply plant their flags instinctively for their "side". However, I -like you- hope most people are reasonably principled in their opinions.


So on that note, let's keep the criticism constructive, reasoned, and informed.

Click to expand...

Examples of flip flopping in pool are abundant! You ask for examples members here flip flop on earl Strickland's behavior all the time and a precedent does exist!

Rodney morris went off the reservation and despite over whelming evidence of maligning Mark Griffin his fan boys flip flop and run to his side.

Dennis hatch in trouble with the law in past. But. Matchrooom flip flop and ignores that history!

I could go on and on! And quit frankly do not like being classified as fanning the flames when I clearly am not. I provided thought provoking concepts to the discussion.

It is only appropriate to transition concepts and include your OPINION on the topic when asking others to ponder the questions/scenarios raised.

In giving my position and asking others to reflect I ask them to be UNIFORM in their opinion and unbiased. Not let nationality , race &etc. Cloud how they view the scenario and taint public opinion and justice!

My comment was more of a plea to the board. Then any type of condemnation. but you know that already and like to stir the pot with this incendiary bs!

Stop wasting peoples time and add something thought provoking! If you even can? Sadly, you have not added one thought provoking concept or thing of value out of so many threads and posts.

Stimulate don't denigrate!

Kd

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

NlceGuy said:

Hate to burst your bubble but there was an entry fee, it wasn't cheap either. 1k per event.

Typical round robin knock out stage implies a stage in which you play for a qualifying spot of a separate paying tournament bracket. In this case, the knock out stage was part of the same tournament, evident by the place and prize money received by the round robin finishers.

So how does someone who already finished in a place where prize money is assigned, get resurrected to play for more money. Shane was loose and firing in the semis, hard not to when you are on a free-roll.

Click to expand...

I think this is important for people to read.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Kid Dynomite said:

Stop wasting peoples time and add something thought provoking! If you even can? Sadly, you have not added one thought provoking concept or thing of value out of so many threads and posts.

Kd

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

So if somebody disagrees with your view, it's no longer thought provoking? That certainly explains the content & quality of your discourse.

If you read my posts (perhaps you'll need to do so more than once) you'll see that I - along with many other AZ members on both sides of this issue including Spartan & Itsfroze - have added very clear and consistent viewpoints to this topic that attempt to further the debate. You, on the other hand, have taken a self-righteous, arrogant stance based upon your prejudiced view of the AZB membership and an inexplicable belief that only you are capable of acting in a logically consistent manner. Please...get over yourself.

BJTyler said:

So if somebody disagrees with your view, it's no longer thought provoking? That certainly explains the content & quality of your discourse.

If you read my posts (perhaps you'll need to do so more than once) you'll see that I've added a very clear and consistent viewpoint to this topic that attempts to further the debate. You, on the other hand, have taken a self-righteous, arrogant stance based upon your prejudiced view of the AZB membership and an inexplicable belief that only you are capable of acting in a logically inconsistent manner.

Click to expand...

No, all you do is change the SUBJECT!!! This thread is not about me being "Self-righteous & Arrogant"


Now what???????

KD