Competition Winner Rank

[dorianking]

As the chess tournament came to a conclusion, I would just to state that I think it is highly unfair that people who are given the Competition Rank can continue to participate in events. The reason people win the competition in the first place is due to the fact that they are clearly better than your average player. By allowing them to continually play, you are not giving other people a chance to earn the rank.

If there was a award prize of RSGP or money, then I understand that they can try to achieve that, but if only a rank is given out (as of the chess tournament), how does the previous winner benefit? He literally plays to keep the title which means nothing. It should be fair to give other people a chance to gain the title.

My suggestion?

Don't allow people who have the rank to participate in tournaments. If they choose to, then there should be a punishment. Whoever beat that person in the finals, they are stripped of their rank because someone like Darkgroove who is ranked 85th in the world can clearly beat most people in this forum and has a clear distinct advantage. He has ABSOLUTELY NO risk in joining the tournament, he already has the rank and there is no monetary prize, whereas the rest of the players just compete with each other and are fighting for the same thing (the rank).

Just my thoughts, and inb4 the sore loser remark.

 

[x339]

Excluding people from competitions is a lot worse than having them win again.

I like the idea of having their rank given to the user who beats them if that occurs. Perhaps another method would be to give the rank to the runner up, but excluding those people all together is not fair, and will eventually wean down the number of participants to none.

 

Editing because it's confusing
----

I disagree on not letting them enter, by all means they can enter. But if they earn the rank for chess, and then win at chess again, the second place member should get the competition rank. It seems only fair, otherwise members wont join in because they think it's inevitable that the same person will win time and time again and therefore they wont ever get a chance at the rank.

Something definitely needs to be changed so other people have a chance of winning, if the same people win all the time less people will want to sign up for these things because there's 'no point'.

 

I think it is highly unfair that people who are given the Competition Rank can continue to participate in events.

They have as much right to enter the competition as anyone else, just because they have won previously should not ban them from entering, that, in itself, is unfair.

The reason people win the competition in the first place is due to the fact that they are clearly better than your average player. By allowing them to continually play, you are not giving other people a chance to earn the rank.

There are several different types of competition that are done, the key is to be better than the other users who have entered. You can't ban the good players from entering, that's just silly.

It should be fair to give other people a chance to gain the title.

They get the chance, by winning. If they are not good enough, they don't win. Just because some guy has won it more than once doesn't make competitions unfair, it means there is a greater challenge to be overcome, if anything it gives more satisfaction if you do beat a good player.

Don't allow people who have the rank to participate in tournaments. If they choose to, then there should be a punishment. Whoever beat that person in the finals, they are stripped of their rank because someone like Darkgroove who is ranked 85th in the world can clearly beat most people in this forum and has a clear distinct advantage.

It's not only chess that is done for a competition, if say, Darkgroove wins at chess and gets the rank, and is then beaten at say, connect 4. It would be unfair to strip him of his rank for winning at chess, as they are two separate competitions and games.


I understand where you are coming from, but what you are suggesting is, I feel, unfair in itself.

 

[dorianking]

Something definitely needs to be changed so other people have a chance of winning, if the same people win all the time less people will want to sign up for these things because there's 'no point'.

This is my exact point, this will discourage other people from joining because not only do we have to dedicate our time to it, but we have to defeat a reigning champion, which in the chess tournament happened to be a pro. I didn't even mention that he came late to the tournament and shouldn't of been allowed to join but was allowed anyways, but I'll save that rant for myself.

If there was something like "Chess Competition Winner 2010" or even "Chess Competition Winner", then it is a different story because every single rank would be different. However, if the rank is universal, you make it difficult to give people a chance to win and as a mod I talked to today said, "The point of competitions is to bring the community closer." Trying to take down a champion with no repercussion on his/her part is discouraging for the rest of the participants because they are already fighting an uphill battle. An example I can think of is American Idol. If you win American Idol, do you go an participate in the next season? No, I don't think you are even allowed which is what the perception I'm trying for others to see.

 

I get where you are coming from but we don't want to turn people away from entering. As x339 stated, it would eventually mean there would be no participants. Not all the games will be chess or chess related so Darkgroove won't have the advantage.

I'll discuss this with Superman.

 

[x339]

Not everyone needs an award. If you don't win, grow a pair, and try to win the next one.

 

[Lilmj27]

Also, when someone wins the super Bowl, are they banned from playing next year? No, even if they're hugely superior, also, about the second place idea, that's also a bad idea, because what happens to the people who get beat by that player? Honestly, you just seem like you're upset you lost, if I'm wrong, sorry, but that's what's coming from you.

 

[Purple Smurf]

I understand where he is coming from though I mean it's of mixed emotions But I think if someone has one a competion for a specific thing like chess that they shouldnt be able to win or compete again for a chess competion winner


So I guess I support in a sense

 

[Yeperdoodle]

Some people are better at things than others, that is just how it is. Not allowing them to participate is just unfair.

 

[cosrob97]

There was discussion of 2x competition and 3x competition winner rank, but it seems to have died down. I'll bring it back up.

 

[x339]

There was discussion of 2x competition and 3x competition winner rank, but it seems to have died down. I'll bring it back up.

That sounds like the best idea in this thread so far.

 

[Novaray]

I would say to allow competition winners to participate but possibly give the rank to the runner-up if the winner already has the rank

 

The ranking was for Australia, not the world. But hey I enjoy playing these tournaments... they're supposed to be fun, not just for the rank...

This is my exact point, this will discourage other people from joining because not only do we have to dedicate our time to it, but we have to defeat a reigning champion, which in the chess tournament happened to be a pro. I didn't even mention that he came late to the tournament and shouldn't of been allowed to join but was allowed anyways, but I'll save that rant for myself

I didn't come late... I was the 3rd person to enter or something.

 

Excluding people from competitions is a lot worse than having them win again.

I like the idea of having their rank given to the user who beats them if that occurs. Perhaps another method would be to give the rank to the runner up, but excluding those people all together is not fair, and will eventually wean down the number of participants to none.

Oh my, I'm agreeing with x339!

 

[Emperor Nero]

Oh my, I'm agreeing with x339!

You better watch out, the rest of the mods are going to be after you now...


Ontopic:

I can see where people who are highly skilled can just come in and not let anyone else win, and that would become un-fun. If we held a chess competition monthly and a single person always won the entries would dwindle. That being said I really don't think we need to exclude people from playing the game, maybe if someone has played in that tournament before and they win the runner-up gets a rank or something. We all know that people play the tournaments for the rank, unless you already have the rank and then you're probably just playing for fun or not playing the game at all.

So there are many more solutions than to just exclude people.

 

[Silver]

There was discussion of 2x competition and 3x competition winner rank, but it seems to have died down. I'll bring it back up.

I like this idea, I don't see the harm in this, as it would prevent exclusions as well, as I do think that excluding people is unfair.

 

[Jake]

There was discussion of 2x competition and 3x competition winner rank, but it seems to have died down. I'll bring it back up.

I don't think thats very fair, the same person could just keep winning and get a higher competition rank every time. I like the idea of the competition winner giving up his rank if he loses in a competition.

 

[Sanctuary]

I won a haxball tournament - how does it make sense that I'm now essentially banned from all other tournaments, such as chess?

 

[Sypherz]

Oh my, I'm agreeing with x339!

You're a mod/ represent the site. Don't be an asshole on non-spam topics regardless of who it is. It's immature.

OT: I don't think anyone should be excluded from competitions. Analogies and the points above aside, I like the idea of being able to earn a fun rank if you double up.