Author Topic: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.  (Read 16158 times)

Offline maverickman5

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +5/-1
  • I'm a Bad Man.
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2005, 09:37:37 AM »
I whole heartedly agree that sports should be recognizedin a some way(dont get me wrong, thats the only prizes I ever win)but to demerit a strong player isnt fair.  The clix games that I run(I know, the shame) used to have a sports prize that was voted on by the players, which was semi-fair until the same people started to always vote for the same people.  now I award it to the player who best exemplifies sportsmanship this week.  Maybe not the best system, but it works.  I am sure that some other brighter people than me can come up with a way that rewards the good sports without penalizing the player that demolishes an opponent.


As someone who frequently gets the snot beaten out of him in just about every different game I play, I can understand why some people might want to give sportsmanship more merit in a tournament setting.  But this also encourages the person who just got a humbling destruction dealt to them to give negative rating to the victor as to try to balance the score a bit.  While not the intent, it is in fact a negative and plausable possibility.
Beware the Rules Lawyer!


www.Miniartofwar.com

Offline Daikoku

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
  • Karma: +6/-0
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2005, 01:41:47 AM »
I have to say, as a veteran of several EE tourneys, that the way that sportsmanship/painting is factored into the scoring doesn't really affect the overall balance unless the game was a close one.  If a person is dominant on the table top it will show through on the final scoring since that is the lion's share of your event score.

As I understand it, and I might be wrong, but the motivating factor of having the 'back side' of the EE score card is to promote not only painting skills/effort, but also proper decorum as well.  Personally, I don't care how good of a strategist you are, if you're a jerk I won't play you again unless I have to.  Jerks who win by a slight margin on the table top aren't going to gain any points on the back side of the score card, and they shouldn't.  By the way, there aren't any deductions or 'minuses' of points for bad sports/paintjobs only additional points for being a good sport, knowing the rules, force composition, and paint.  Also remember that people who don't make playing in an EE tourney at least a neutral (if not positive) experience hurt EE's business as the other player could come away with the idea that WarZone players are jerks.  IMHO *winning* a tourneyment should also mean winning over your opponent.  Gaming is a social activity and yes it is competetive but I'm not saying that just because you go for the jugular you're being a bad sportsman, it's a WAR game I expect it.  Some smack talking is cool (at least with me) too as long as it's lighthearted and steers away from being personal.  But coming to agreements on certain vagaries of the rules when they arise, being able to give and take on some points, and graciously accepting an umpire's ruling as well as being a good winner/looser should be 'rewarded' with a few points as should a fantastic paintjob or well thought out/imaginative/fun force composition.  And the way EE has implemented that works well to achieve their goals in my opinion.
Life is a mountain, death is a feather, duty is all  -  Mishiman Proverb

dagorauk

  • Guest
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2005, 03:17:35 PM »
First...
No...a tournament in and of itself shouldn't be a complete showcase of a hobby.
A tournament is a just that...X number of players with armies that meet tournament playing requirements in order to play the game. Play goes through brackets until there is 1 winner.
That is a tournament, it should be viewed purely as an evaluation of a player's tactical ability to build and play a winning army.

That said, there should be other awards given so that others besides the first man feel they've accomplished something. There should be a seperate award/competition for painters, and giving a small Sportsmanship award is a good idea...but I don't think it's fair to give someone a "champ" trophy because he was a little nicer than the guy who should have beat him. That just makes for a more bitter player who saw their army defeat their foes, win the tourny, and then get overturned because they didn't go as far out of their way to be a nice guy. A Seperate Sportsman award is a good idea.
Beyond that, I'd suggest that if you wanted you could set up a listing of tournament players, with average ratings displayed for what other players evaluate their sportsmanship and possibly painting skill at. That's a little excessive imo though.

Finally, minimum painting requirements? I don't like 'em. I know some players who despise painting. They can do it alright, but it's like pulling teeth for them. I don't think they should have to slog through not only putting on three colors...but putting on eyes (something some people avoid because they can't manage the fine detail) and require base flocking/sanding as well? Myself, I don't base a single miniature because it looks stupid to put flocking on a mini and then see it playing on a desert table with a green base. I just do mine flat black because it doesn't matter what the base looks like. Not only that, but if you're not careful when flocking or sanding a base, you can really mess up a good paint job on a mini too. I don't think basing is worth more than blacking it, and to tell someone they can't play because of something like that is unfair. At the most two colors should be required, or just a base color and a drybrush.

Offline Daikoku

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
  • Karma: +6/-0
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2005, 08:00:02 PM »
No...a tournament in and of itself shouldn't be a complete showcase of a hobby.
A tournament is a just that...X number of players with armies that meet tournament playing requirements in order to play the game. Play goes through brackets until there is 1 winner.
That is a tournament, it should be viewed purely as an evaluation of a player's tactical ability to build and play a winning army.

In YOUR opinion. 

The fact is that gaming clubs, game publishing companies, and gaming retailers (FLGS) all use these kinds of events to 'showcase the hobby'.  Have you ever played in a tourney sponsored by EE?  How about WotC?  Or even GW?  Do you think that if a company goes to the trouble of sponsoring an event (supplying prize support, referees, handling the scoring, and otherwise submitting and supervising the event) that they shouldn't be allowed to set the rules governing it?  And why else would a company go to the trouble if not to promote/showcase their game thereby (hopefully) increasing their market share?  If you want a 'pure' tournement then run one, or don't participate in ones that don't conform to your 'vision'.  As for me, I'll continue to play in events sponsored by EE because I feel their scoring system is fair, the events are well run, the proxy and minimum paint requirements are liberal, and I have a good time playing in them win or loose.

Quote
That said, there should be other awards given so that others besides the first man feel they've accomplished something. There should be a seperate award/competition for painters, and giving a small Sportsmanship award is a good idea...but I don't think it's fair to give someone a "champ" trophy because he was a little nicer than the guy who should have beat him. That just makes for a more bitter player who saw their army defeat their foes, win the tourny, and then get overturned because they didn't go as far out of their way to be a nice guy.

It's obvious from your statement here that you haven't participated in an EE run event, nor did you read my previous post on the subject.  It's also seems you're all about winning, that's fine.  However being a champion isn't just about winning, it is also about how you conduct yourself while you win.   To illustrate my point I'll give you one comparison.  Tiger Woods is a champion, Jimmy Connors is a winner.   Who would you rather compete against?

Quote
Finally, minimum painting requirements? I don't like 'em. I know some players who despise painting. They can do it alright, but it's like pulling teeth for them. I don't think they should have to slog through not only putting on three colors...but putting on eyes (something some people avoid because they can't manage the fine detail) and require base flocking/sanding as well? Myself, I don't base a single miniature because it looks stupid to put flocking on a mini and then see it playing on a desert table with a green base. I just do mine flat black because it doesn't matter what the base looks like. Not only that, but if you're not careful when flocking or sanding a base, you can really mess up a good paint job on a mini too. I don't think basing is worth more than blacking it, and to tell someone they can't play because of something like that is unfair. At the most two colors should be required, or just a base color and a drybrush.

Nobody is twisting your arm.  I personally don't paint the eyes of my models nor do I flock the bases for some of the same reasons you cite.  But if an event requried such things I would just pass rather than try and force my opinions of what should and shouldn't be required upon the event organizer.  Personally I would never do as many GW players I've seen and bring just primered models to a competetion.  I have more pride in my forces than that and all are painted to at least a passable game table standard (sans eyes or anything but a plain black base with a mark for the front facing of the model).  There again though for me it's part of the fun of wargaming...playing with and against forces that are valued enough to warrant the best paint job that their commander can muster.  As to your assertion that ANY rule or minimum requirement imposed by the person running an event is 'unfair' that is up to them to decide, it's their event. 

It is clear to me that you and I won't ever agree on this issue, but if you ever get a chance to play in an EE sponsored event I suggest you give it a try, if for nothing else than to see firsthand what their scoring system is like.

Life is a mountain, death is a feather, duty is all  -  Mishiman Proverb

Offline PFC joe

  • Private First Class
  • Private First Class
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 874
  • Karma: +57/-2
  • assistance from a distance
    • PFC joe's After Action Reviews
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2005, 08:20:14 PM »
Scoring for events that I run is based almost entirely on Objectives, and as such it is possible to lose the game but win the points battle.  The Other categories, Army painting & theme, Force Composition and Sportsmanship all contribute to their own categories as well as the over all score, but not so much as to win solely by them.

I'll be the first to admit, some of my early paint jobs would make MageKnight clickies look good but they kept to theme and had a blanket army style that worked well for them. 

All in all, a kick ass paint job won't make a winner out of ya but it deserves to be recognized.  As should people that make the game all around funner to play.

-PFC joe
Qui desiderat pacem pręparet bellum

Offline dane

  • Board Member
  • The Board
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 170
  • Karma: +7/-0
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2005, 08:31:03 PM »
Hi, I have seen a lot of really intelligent and valid arguements to both sides of the painting and judging aspects of tournament play. I have been getting some really great feedback at the tournaments and I am going to try to incorporate them into the next tourneys I am involved in.
Just a few humble opinions on the thread:

Painting: Any attempt at painting is acceptable. Not all people paint at a good level or should feel bad for it. The game is about making a reproduction of a battlefield event, and all effort put into it is well appreciated. That is why no penalties are applied armies that are less than "perfect". Play and have fun with your army, but if somebody puts in a great deal of extra effort and makes the game look great, yes, they get kudos in points for it. This is a visual game, and if it looks good, people have more fun, and more people watch and wonder and stick around to find out about it. However you enjoy the game is valid, but don't you turn the details of your Unreal Tournement 2005 up as high as you can go to get the best look you can run on your machine?

Sportsmanship: The judging of a tournement is an attempt to balance a lot of aspects of play and overall enjoyment for the players.  I have gotten some great feedback and will be dropping the single worst grade from the back of the Tourney sheet from now on. That should eleviate the bratty "got his ass kicked" retribution attempt. I have heard about that and you guys are right, people do try that, but it is usaully just one in a crowd who is too immature and takes losing personally. The back side grading needs clarification so that everyone doesn't just fill it out as a full points just because they don't understand (reasonable, it may need some work) or don't like it(valid, but let me explain).

There no real absolutes about how these things run, everyone can not be made happy, but we can try to comprimise to get the best for the most. The separation of sportsmanship and painting from best general is OK, but it is just  the same a a Games workshop GT (which I have attended quite a few). Now it has its merits, because it allows several different kinds of awards, but it also has flaws because it creates a striation of attitudes in the player base. Some of the best painters could be real jerks (not all by any means, just examples), some of the best sportsmen had crappy armies, and the best generals sometimes cared about nothing but winning. So if we reward this in classes we possibly reward the disreguard of the other attributes of the "game" we play. The greatest player is a tactician, a gentleman and an artist to the best of their abilities, in that order. First play to win, that is about 75% of the overall score, be a good player, and a good sport is about 15% of the score and good painting and nice army design is about 10% (these are rough, but close). If you kick butt, but are a prig about it (exception for the deletion of one lowest score, note above) you will not do as well as someone who mostly kicked butt and had a great attitude and a nice army to boot. We are at a place to create the  fan base that we will be playing in for the this game, think about who you want to play with and against, and shape the demands of the games that are or tournaments to that, its up to all of us.
With all due respect, Tournements are the foremost showcase of any sport in any field or game. That is why they are called Tournements. No golf, Nascar, chess or dart game that was a tournement is treated as just about the final results, it is always about representing the sport/game to the fan base or the public. If it doesn't look its best in all ways, the fan base reduces, if it looks great and attracts attention, more people watch. That is why there are uniforms, ads, cheerleaders and computer graphics. We reperesent it with in this "sport" with tactics, scenery, painting, attitude and fun.
Trust me on this one, if you agree or disagree on all the rest. I have played a metric buttload of tournaments and the worst games ever are with those that do not care at all about the game, the players or the fun. So we reward the combination of all of the social virtues of gaming that we find makes the game more fun and enjoyable to play for as many players as possible.
The system isn't perfect yet, but we are working on it, and you are all helping, thanks.

Just my humble opinion
William Refsland
We are all who we say we are. So long as our actions are the same as our words.

Mishima prophet

dagorauk

  • Guest
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2005, 08:36:10 PM »
Ok, I'll have to be tactful in how I reply to this one...

First, concerning "showcasing the hobby." I'll politely state that in the past, there was one player in my area in particular that was pushing to set up a tournament for Chronopia to try promoting it. A  date had been set, a number of players found and signed up, and there was a promise that a tournament package would be sent. The tournament date had to be pushed back about two  months because the package wasn't sent in a timely manner at all. Since then, we've been unable to interest more than two of the players that showed up at the first tournament to sign up so we could schedule a second. Frankly, if EE had wanted it's tournaments then to be a showcase, they did not seem to show it. Things could be different now, but it's a moot point.


And I beg to differ with you on your personal definition of a "champion".
Webster Online has the following definitions...
1) One that wins first place or first prize in a competition.
2) One that is clearly superior or has the attributes of a winner.
3) Ardent defender or supporter of a cause or another person.
4) One who fights, a warrior.

I think it's safe to say none of this supports your ideal that a champion is the best overall blend of winner and sportsman. Take a hint from Vin Diseal in The Fast and the Furious. "Doesn't matter if it's by an inch or a mile, winning is winning." Yes, it's always better when someone is a gracious winner, but by no means should the guy who ranked #2 in Wins get an overall event championship because he shook everyone's hand, was too modest, and always let the other guy have the upper hand in the end result of a rule interpretation that is unclear...while the one who won the most matches just said 'good game'.  Doing something like this would only make someone more bitter because they placed lower than their play deserved, and would probably result in a more surly attitude.
Bottom line: Bein a good sport is a good thing, but it has no right determining any outcome in a tournament.


Finally...if someone is making excessive requirements of how models "should be painted" for a tournament, as someone who has purchased the models from the company, isn't trying to proxy, but just hasn't added flock or put a dot of color in an eye, then I will bitch about it to the coordinator. As a consumer who has bought the models I should be permitted to participate in the events. I personally would paint my models in some detail...generally I end up with no less than four colors on a figure...but if someone doesn't like painting but bought the minis, to deny them allowance to a tournament is just bad policy...to be bluntly honest...espicially in the case of a company like EE who is a very small company with a small fanbase.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2005, 08:40:22 PM by dagorauk »

Offline dane

  • Board Member
  • The Board
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 170
  • Karma: +7/-0
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2005, 09:30:40 PM »
That's an opinion. Cool, but those that disagree shall run it differently. Thats OK too.

Hey, a lot of things got dropped during a few bits of upheaval with the company, and the people trying to help it. Things happen in peoples lives that interfere with the support of a hobby they love...and it throws things out of balance. I was involved in the creation of the rules and if I was part of the delay I apologize. I didn't hear of any set dates or sign ups or delay dates, I am sorry. People keep trying and putting time in whenever they have a shot at it, because we believe in trying to get something done. Do mistakes get made? yes, but for those that keep trying, they are doing their best. Please don't disparage them for it.

I like Vin D. but in the movie he played an idiot who really would have wrecked his car and was a cruddy example of a true champion, he cheated the system (remember he was a theif) . And by the way did you see the paint jobs on those cars, anybody driving a primer? It along the lines of saying it's OK if our sports heroes get dopped up, as long as they win right? to heck with the sportsmanship of the game....

You don't leave much room for comprimise, It seems that if it is't the top points killer getting the top award you aren't happy. If I am wrong please elaborate, so I can try to find a place to start.

I can assure you, just giving points JUST to the Headsmashers without regard to being a considerate player will lead to a lot of jerks getting awards. Jerks are not what this game needs representing it, and being rewarded. That will do far more damage to the company than any "small fanbase" that is loyal. GW started with a small fanbase that was loyal a long time ago.....

Make NO MISTAKE, you should play to win. But being cranky because you can't be rude to somebody as you whip them is silly. Read again previous posts, you still have to fight well to get in the top. But a player that represents all the aspects of the game that we want our game to be is the real Champion we want to reward. If it is all about JUST kicking butt then get into chess or boxing.

The Champion is defined by the goals set by the supporters of the competition, whatever they are they must be the best at those. I think the core difference is what we are all considering are the goals, and that is why we are not seeing eye to eye. You are not wrong, Just some of the people running the Tournements have a different view, but we have been adopting whatever helps evolve it to be better for the majority of the players. When we recieve constructive criticism we have incorporated it as much a we can. The poeple who have been experiencing the Tournements have seen them grow with their input. Yours included.

Be Well



We are all who we say we are. So long as our actions are the same as our words.

Mishima prophet

Offline maverickman5

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +5/-1
  • I'm a Bad Man.
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2005, 06:41:00 AM »
I appreciate the view that tournaments help, promote or spotlight our hobby/game system, but compariring it to nascar or golf or any pro sport is like apples to oranges.  I dont know of any pro sports that if your team is dressed well or have good sportsmanship are extra points awarded.  Wow, great jerseys guys heres 10 extra points!
It just doesnt happen, and for good reason, it takes the focus off the game and puts it on the emotions/feeling of the participants.  The point of the game is not to make your opponent feel happy, but to destroy him on the battlefield, which can be done in a sporting way.  A happy player shouldnt be rewarded simply because he's happy and loses with a smile. If you dont win, you dont get top rankings.
Beware the Rules Lawyer!


www.Miniartofwar.com

Offline joshuaslater

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3681
  • Karma: +115/-4
  • Homebase: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2005, 08:14:22 AM »
Having participated in this past weekend's Chronopia tournament (run by Bill Refsland) I can say that I had a blast, the play was good, and I wasn't aware of anyone being penalized for models that weren't Golden Demon material. 

When I started this post, I just wanted to know what I could expect at a tourney, which was the whole point, and didn't realize two pages would spring up over the scoring.   'Hadn't even occured to me.  That being said, scoring issues, the nature of what makes a champion, and the promotion of our hobby can have their own threads.  I just wanted a sticky outlining the three color minimum.  'Wouldn't hurt to have it on the site.

@ dane--you delivered the goods on what I expected a well organized tournament to be.  Thanks, and I'll see you again.  Just watch out for those Wolves. ::)
May the Dark Lords of Lead-Free Pewter smile kindly upon you.

Homebase: Philadelphia, PA

Offline TwoGunBob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Karma: +14/-1
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2005, 08:35:08 AM »
  The point of the game is not to make your opponent feel happy, but to destroy him on the battlefield, which can be done in a sporting way. 

I don't think I'd enjoy playing against you very much.
Currently playing:
Bow House: Saggy Old Ellie
Dark Lesion: Ill Ian, Whored
Empirical: I D... Ef' Em

dagorauk

  • Guest
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2005, 08:48:08 AM »
  The point of the game is not to make your opponent feel happy, but to destroy him on the battlefield, which can be done in a sporting way. 

I don't think I'd enjoy playing against you very much.

But in a tournament it shouldn't really be someone's job to make playing against them enjoyable. To be fair they should make playing against them downright miserable from being used to mop the floor. Tournaments can be fun but it shouldn't be #1 priority to make the other guy feel warm and fuzzy.

Offline Steel Rabbit

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 162
  • Karma: +7/-2
  • Brotherhood Inquisitor
    • The Wargamer
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2005, 10:35:56 AM »
I'm not saying you have to paint your models like a pro, you missed my point entirely. What I'm saying is this...Wether you like it or not Warzone and Chronopia are HOBBY games, if one is not up to the joy and challenge of painting ones models, one should play a board game or RPG. Your models don't have to be pro painted they should just show that you put some work into finishing the models. Now should you be penalized for poor painting? No. The criteria I suggested is a minimum standard that shows that TIME and EFFORT went into your army to make it look good. That's all I suggested, I'm not a painting snob, I find the best paint jobs are the ones people put the most time and effort in, I'm not being corny I truly believe that. I've worked at a games shop for a year and a half now and I've seen alot of what some people would consider crap but I would consider perfectly fine because the 14 year old kid has only been lifting a brush for nine months and just finished an army that he can be proud of.

On the topic of sportsmanship, mashing your opponent into the ground is great for sports or...Vin Diesel, as you've mentioned but we're playing a wargame. An inherintly social activity. You don't street-race or play football against another team that you just went to the food court with, or are going to create an online correspondance via a forum. Wargaming is about two people on either end of a board having fun.

NOW, I'm not saying that the competition should be taken out of the tournament, by no means. Tournaments are for competition. How healthy that competition should be is what I'm arguing. You put three nice guys and a jerk who just so happens to be a good general in a tourney and you've just ruined the weekend for the three nice guys. Where do we draw the line between fun and winning in a tabletop game?

Offline TwoGunBob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Karma: +14/-1
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2005, 11:13:27 AM »
  The point of the game is not to make your opponent feel happy, but to destroy him on the battlefield, which can be done in a sporting way. 

I don't think I'd enjoy playing against you very much.

But in a tournament it shouldn't really be someone's job to make playing against them enjoyable. To be fair they should make playing against them downright miserable from being used to mop the floor. Tournaments can be fun but it shouldn't be #1 priority to make the other guy feel warm and fuzzy.

Remind me not to bother with tournaments any time soon. I mean, attitudes like that make it just a competition rather than a social event of any kind. It's that win, win, win attitude that turns me off. Players like that tend to have no friendly games. Basically sportmanship is there to keep a decorum and some general levels of manners up there. Some people are very much lacking in this department and do indeed need an outlined set of guidelines to keep them in line. Given, these are also the people that should be forced to obey "Your mother doesn't work here" signs, but some people can be incredibly caustic whether they are crowing when they are winning or throwing their dice and miniatures around like a two year old being weened of a bottle.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2005, 11:20:05 AM by TwoGunBob »
Currently playing:
Bow House: Saggy Old Ellie
Dark Lesion: Ill Ian, Whored
Empirical: I D... Ef' Em

Offline T Prime

  • Big Kahuna, Chairman of the Board
  • Administrator
  • Member Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 6468
  • Karma: +75/-0
Re: Excelsior painting standard for tournament play.
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2005, 11:22:10 AM »
Couple of points.

1) In our tourneys (as defined by using our scoring sheets and our rules) the role of the second page is for determing sportsmanship and painting awards. It does not factor into scoring for tourney winners based on points/objectives/etc. They are two seperate and distinct classifications.


2)
Quote
But in a tournament it shouldn't really be someone's job to make playing against them enjoyable. To be fair they should make playing against them downright miserable from being used to mop the floor.


I couldn't disagree more. The point of participating in a tourney to me is to meet other players and have a great time in doing so. It is to see new paint schemes and to observe new tactics. It is to commiserate with others who share my hobby. It is first to have fun and enable others to have fun.

Don't get me wrong, I like to win as much as the next person, but it does not color my appreciation of an event. I like to laugh, joke and cajole with players. If I win in the process, great. If I did not win, then I most assuredly had a great time anyway and will have awesome stories about my defeats. I never want my opponent to make me miserable nor would I want to do that to them. I honestly would not play were that the case and can't see how winning a trophy or other prize would be worth it.

I understand that some may disagree with this philosophy, but I have been gaming longer than the card craze jadedness has been around, before winning itself was the be-all and end-all point. TWhat I describe is the atmosphere that got me into the hobby and it is the atmosphere that I want to encourage. I spend money for things I enjoy, not for things that make me a winner. My being a winner is never determined by how well I did at an event but in my attitude. Just my opinion. That being said, you may not want to partake in our events as our philsophies seem radically different and your enjoyment may be compromised as a result. That's ok, it doesn't make you wrong or anything else for that matter. You would be welcome though and I hope you would have a great time anyway.

The point of the thread with the question about minimum paiting requirements however has been answered hoopefully to everyones satisfaction. If anyone wishes to continue this discussion feel free to, I did not come here to shut it down. Let's have fun. :)
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Excelsior!!