Comments: In which I attempt to fix the barn door

Excellent, excellent, excellent idea. I certainly hope the tournament administrators are listening.

Posted by Eric Berlin at March 15, 2004 01:25 PM

I'm all for this, myself. So long as they also do something about the logistical/recordkeeping/whatever problems that led to the situation.

But yes, I think a rematch next year would be an excellent plan.

Posted by Kath at March 15, 2004 01:30 PM

Hi, I just heard from Willz. They found my puzzle, which just didn't get entered into the computer. He said that with all the puzzle 6 problems, they didn't do a thorough check of the zeroes. My tournament fee is being refunded, and Will says he'll think about a make-up C final at next year's tournament.

-- Saph

Posted by Saphir at March 15, 2004 03:25 PM

Thanks for the update, Saphir (aka Jennifer Turney for any non-NPL readers out there). Now there's the other problem which I don't envy Will for having to think about -- if there is a rematch, who gets the #3 position? The actual #3 finisher in the C division wasn't there for the playoffs, but did he leave because of the delay (in which case he should clearly retain his spot), or did he leave before 11:00, the time at which results are usually announced? If he left before 11:00, I kinda feel the 3rd playoff rematch spot should go to 4th place C-division finisher Arthur Schulman (who left to catch a train at 11:30, which would have given him time to compete at 11:00 had things run hitch-free), because people clearly have a responsibility to, you know, actually make an attempt to show up for the playoff round or their spot should clearly be forfeited.

Posted by Francis at March 15, 2004 03:49 PM

Dan points out that it would just cause more controversy to have a rematch be anyone other than the top three in C, for any reason, which is almost certainly true. Well, you know, that's thinking out loud for you -- sometimes you think of dumb ideas.

Posted by Francis at March 15, 2004 04:36 PM

you described getting to the Bs without getting to participate in the C final "a situation which they've deliberately tried to avoid having."

this actually happens to tons of Cs moving into B - you're right that you can't be an A anymore without being on stage unless, as with you, four or more Bs finish in the top 10, but any C finishing in the top 20% is a B. it's an interesting question whether that 20% cutoff should be increased, since it now means that it's a lot easier to get into B than it used to be, because 20% is so much more after the recent attendance explosion.

Posted by Ken/Cazique at March 15, 2004 07:05 PM

Oh, whoops, I was under the mistaken impression that the process of going from C to B was the same as going from B to A. Thanks for the correction. The larger point that it wouldn't be cool to finish in first place in C division and move to the B division without getting to compete in a playoff still applies, though.

Posted by Francis at March 15, 2004 07:14 PM

yeah, to a lot of people, including me. these days, the D winner usually goes straight to B. (Jeff/Jangler will, Lance did, etc). I took a great interest in that in 2002, as i knew that (a) i could definitely contend for the C finals, and (b) given my performances historically, it was very unlikely that i would finish outside of the 20% cutoff given the number of competitors that year.

PS, Saphir, that all sucks, sorry it happened. One would think that they'd make extra sure to check all the zeros in a year with scoring problems, but who knows. Will is usually pretty stressed around that time.

Posted by Ken/Cazique at March 15, 2004 07:32 PM