LOL

Edit: redacted feisty comment.

It is absolutely a tax. There is ZERO benefit to the spend for all but a very few players in each state. Why do I as a casual, but still competitive player, care if the purse is substantial at the SC tourney? 16 people are there. It's mostly the same 16 every year. Why can't they fund it if they want more skin in the game?

I do agree with a $5 annual fee if someone wants to be rated as a player by IFPA. That would be a FEE. Otherwise, the regular meat and potatoes player is just getting skimmed with every event. That is wrong.

funny part os actually that MOST players would be HAPPY to pay in to support the administrative needs of the IFPA if they could do so...

oddly they are not providing that option.

How does that work? They allow anyone but verbally discourage anyone with a penis from participating?

Have you checked out Rankade? Looks like it would do the job & appears to be free. The algorithm is more like the chess player ranking algorithm where you're trying to measure relative strength of players rather than some mix of participation and strength.

A better question might be: why do you, as a casual (but still competitive) player, care if the overall purse is $16 less?

Here's some math:

16 players
$20 entry

Total purse: $320
Minus: $16 for IFPA

Total available purse for payouts: $304

Top 4 paid - 40%, 30%, 20%, 10% (or, you know, whatever breakdown you want)

1st - $122
2nd - $91
3rd - $61
4th - $30

I just don't understand how that changes someone's calculus.

It's a matter of principle.

Why should I pay money to someone not even at my tournament? That's insane.

"It's only a dollar"

No, it's 20% of the entry fee...or 16%, depending upon $5 or $6...

I understand the principal, I just think it's a made up construct.

You're right on the math, but maybe this will be a nice correction and that weeklies shouldn't be for $5. Or report monthly and the fee goes down. Or just have weeklies for fun and larger tournaments with increased entry fees to offset the proportion of the pot.

There's a lot of ways to slice this, but I don't see how the "$1 per player" is anything to get principled about with so many options.

That's the trap of believing it's only about $1.

again, why should I ante up $1 for another tournament, in another place, with mostly players with whom I have never competed?

What's in it for me? Nothing, and that's where the principle matters. It's not improving the game of pinball or the venues in which I participate. It's just some arbitrary idea of how to juice up tournaments in which only the most elite players qualify, and no, I am not disappointed to not be part of those events. I just simply will never likely qualify. I'm absolutely cool with that. Always have been.

The point still remains that this IFPA tax does zero for almost everyone involved. Trying to convince the world to accept it because "it's only $1" is pretty damned insulting.

I'm sorry, what? Where's the trap?

Starting last year the IFPA has begun to officially recognize women's only tournaments. There is a separate women's only ranking.

convincing everyone that it's only one dollar...

well, it IS one dollar...at a time.

I have no words.

Wish you the best and hope you can still enjoy competitive pinball when the IFPA totally ruins it next year.

That is similar to what the IFPA rating is (based on glicko system used in chess).

No, it is not a tax because no one is forcing you to pay anything. The TD can always run a non-IFPA endorsed tournament, and you can always choose not to play.

I also have no way of processing this perspective of "does nothing for almost everyone involved". It's a prize pool. If you want your dollar back, you have to earn it. Making it do something for everyone involved is like advocating for participation trophies. If you don't think you have a shot at winning the game, then don't play the game.

The purpose of the experiment is at least in part to raise the level of awareness in the general, currently non-pinball playing society. More people playing pinball helps YOU, and all the rest of us pinball enthusiasts. Media attention, sponsors, etc. Larger prize pools might help. Since the CFO of a major game manufacturer thinks it will help raise awareness I'm inclined to support him. Does that mean I'm paying $1 extra to play in every event? No. If my local players prefer non-endorsed events then we'll have them and I'll help run them. I'm absolutely willing to financially support the experiment with a few extra $$ using the proposed methodology next year and we'll see how it goes.

So the points only apply to that ranking then? If that's the case...okay. I still don't think that promoting reverse discrimination is the best way to foster inclusivity, but thays a whole other thread. Kerri Wing had no trouble kicking my ass a few weeks ago.

Someone not playing at that particular event should not have a shot at my dollar. That is EXACTLY the point.

It is not a prize pool, as you describe. It is a slush fund, or tax of others, for an external event.

By playing in an IFPA endorsed event, you are by default playing in the State Championship Series. If you don't want to play in the State Championship Series, do not play in an IFPA endorsed event.

I agree, but some would have us believe this tax is for the advancement of the game of pinball. Now we're telling folks they can take it or leave it.

Awesome!!! So inclusive and demonstrative of the pinball community as a whole, wouldn't you agree?

yeah me neither. Actually my experience has been nothing like that, in no small part to your own contributions. i just see that statement as VERY short sighted.

It is 100% a prize pool as he describes.

I can see that you don't like that it's a multi level prize pool, with payouts at the local level, state level, and national level. I can respect that you don't like this multi-level payout scheme, which is a very valid for not participating if you fee strongly enough. Or for the TD to not participate in the first place... like Hilton plans on doing with his WI system.

so pay the tax or hit the road.

Got it.

I checked it out and it looks slick. unfortunately it appears to require all players to have an established profile?

The benefit of the current system is that one TD can submit for everyone, even if they dont maintain a full profile and just a name.

I firmly believe it is for the advancement of the game and hope to prove that out.

If we can have half the success that I've seen out of our Big Buck Hunter model (same model) then the sport will be in a better place long term.

I firmly believe it will have the opposite effect. Competitive pinball has had massive improvements in participation over the last couple years, and i believe 2018 will be the first year in quite a while that less people play than the previous year and less events.

just look at the comments here. "you can take it or leave it." "you dont have to play" "If you dont want to play in SCS dont play any IFPA events".... list goes on and on.

That's because you're a white dude.

Regardless, the people in the marginalized group are the ones who get to decide what makes them feel more included.

We will have to agree to disagree then.

If I let a few Pinside comments curb my motivation and enthusiasm for advancing the sport forward, the IFPA would have died a long time ago.

I believe there is a likely chance less players play in IFPA endorsed events, but believe those players interested in casually competing will still be out there playing just as often.

Wow......what the hell....

Those quotes seem to contradict each other.

Not at all. Players don't have to play in "endorsed" events to be playing competitive pinball.

The advancement of the sport is to focus on garnering the media attention that can help put pinball back in the dialogue of a world that currently doesn't discuss it as much as they should.

With that media attention comes a whole new world of opportunity to introduce new players to the game even existing, let alone a game that can be played competitively.

We're implementing this as a way to give ourselves a better chance at landing that media attention at a more meaningful level.

So you don't care if the casual player feels included, but go ahead and pay the fees?

Part of the allure of the hobby as a whole, is the community itself across all demographics and skill levels, yet the elitism permeates this very discussion about letting the casual player eat their cake. You can't have it both ways. You can't subsidize the "pros" while telling the casual players to step off if they don't like subsidizing the "pros." The plan, as discussed counts on everyone staying in, so to speak.

Time will tell who goes and stays, and where competitive pinball does as well. The shame of it all is that I cannot remember ever arguing or having an ounce of concern over money with regard to leagues, dues, or pots. That was before someone thought it would be wise to demand folks to pay others to play pinball...if they wanted to "officially" compete. My guess is, there will be a whole lot more unsanctioned events. You're going to find out how trivial the rankings really are, save for the few elite players who qualify for SCS events.

Truth is, there might truly be a demand for a professional league or sponsored events. Sack up and get sponsors and generate media interest. Do not, however, make the casual player shoulder that load. It won't hurt pinball, but it will change the culture as it stands today.

Maybe that is exactly what some of you seek. If so, just come out and say it.

I get what you are saying but if the TD of our local league makes our events "endorsed" then we have no choice but either to pay the extra buck or to not play. Charge a fee directly to the IFPA and leave the local tournaments out of it. The majority of people will be happy to pay an annual fee to IFPA to have current valid rankings. The problem is you are forcing people that have no real chance or desire to travel and compete at state/national level to pay for something that does not benefit them in the least. You can track payments by state/ city and add to prize pools for state tournaments by people who pay.

By doing what you are considering you are hurting those that want to support and enjoy local league play.
That is not good if you are truly wanting to promote and grow competitive pinball.

I am sure we can all agree we appreciate the service that IFPA does and most have no issue if the IFPA needs to cover some administrative costs for the service it provides. But saying you want to media coverage and to grow the sport has NOTHING to do with this fee you are wanting to charge. GET COORPORATE SPONSORSHIP!!! You get Stern, JJP, Spooky, Marco, etc to advertise, add to prize pools etc. There are lots of ways to "grow" competitive pinball and not create this divide. Surely Stern can afford to give a little back to the community that is buying their $15K pins. And I am sure they will earn sales out of it so it's not a bad idea for them to do it.

This whole attitude of take it or leave it is a real turn off....that's a great way to encourage new people to play in tournaments. I guess you will sucker in all the new people that don't know any better.

So more money = more media attention? going from $100 payout to $1,000 will draw in major news outlets to cover pinball?

How large does the prize pool need to be in order to gain this media attention that is so sure to follow?

Yes sir! I'm on it! (And between my dad and Steve Epstein with PAPA, along with Zach and myself at IFPA we've been trying for over 25 years. Looking forward to where we can take the next 25)

I think everyone needs to stop looking at this as a $1 "personal fee" to themselves. It's really not.
It's a fee to any tournament that wants to be included in the rankings, and be held as an "endorsed event".
It happens to be $1 for each player that event submits.
The event is the same, and each can choose to be counted or not.
You as a player are not violated! Get over it!
Choose to play in events or not, an event is endorsed or not.
This rule will most likely only change the # of endorsed events, others will just go on as usual, with no points if they don't or can't support the tournament fee.

Yes, that's exactly right.

The next step from there is to land bigger corporate sponsors.

With Big Buck we were able to stretch the prize package from $10,000 up to now $75,000 for our world championship.

The first big step was using a portion of the fees paid into tournaments towards the World Championship pool. From there the ability to gain bigger sponsors was far easier.

Between all the State and National payouts the total purse was about $20,000 (Including a NIB Stern game from Stern who is our biggest sponsor). I would like to see that number eventually approach where we are at with Buck Hunter. Time will tell if we can get there using the same methodology.

Ironically enough the companies you listed have all supported IFPA. They are the reason we don't need to collect fees from players to cover our administrative expenses.

Stern gives a ton back to the competitive community through their work with us via their rewards program and sponsorship of the top prize at both the National and World Championships.

It looks to me like a TD can include people without them having to register. See: https://rankade.com/frequently-asked-question/3/what-is-a-ghost-user/67

I had totally missed that. My spouse will be super excited. She's wanted to host a women's only tourney for some time.

If i pay the money and it is not paid out in my local event, what happened to it?

It is absolutely an added fee, or tax.

you are wasting your typing on him. He is a top tier player that is obviously more concerned with how much money the noobs in his state will pay in to a prize pool he can win. A short sighted goal if it ends up meaning less money in the long run due to fewer people showing up to play and contribute.

If it was a tournament flat fee, then he would have a good point, but since the tax is based directly on the number of people playing and tied directly to them, the whole thing is a fee/tax to play in a sanctioned event.

Oddly, I am not sure why they did not at minimum decide on tier levels for event fees. Seems like they could have easily done a structure of:
1-30 people = $5
30-50 people = $20
50 - 100 people = $50
100 -200 people = $150

Basically a structure that was tied to the actual event rather than the individual. A structure that incentivizes still trying to grow the sport (if you are running a small weekly then you should try to maximize your value by getting up to 30 people there). A structure that would have financially made it possible for operators to more likely support as more would likely be willing to give IFPA 5% of their coin drop rather than 30+% of their coin drop from a tourney night.

If I'm going to collect money from my players to advance the sport, I'd rather spend it on something that would benefit my league and tournaments. Maybe some FaceBook advertising, a professionally designed website, a camera setup for one of the games, etc.

But instead, it gets shipped off for a tournament the person(s) collecting the money definitely has a chance of winning.

When was the last time anyone saw a news story on the national billiards champion winning $20,000 and saying to themselves "I've never played billiards before, but I'm going to join a league so I can win $20,000". My guess is never.

It doesn't work that way. If you want new players to join, it needs to be an article about a bunch of everyday people getting together over a few beers and some pinball. Once they play and find out how much fun they have, things will sort themselves from there. Some will go on to want to be more competitive and others will decide it's a fun way to burn an evening with some friends.

Grooming the current player base does nothing to grow pinball. People that love the game are already telling others and inviting them to join. I've never talked to someone new about pinball and said "You should totally join, because if you beat everyone else in the United States, you'll win more money this year". Um yeah, sure.

Let's put this another way, since my league has had media exposure. My buddy and I got together with the bar owner one night and decided we wanted to run a league. Want to know how we grew it to 20 members? By talking to people, friends, family, friends of friends, random people playing in the bar, etc.

After the league was started, we got a 5 or so minute story on the news. That got us 1 additional player, and that story highlighted how laid back and inviting to new members we were, not about winning a bunch of money if you were the best player in the United States.

Great points. I don't have a major issue with the $1 per player charge (I'll just take it out of the prize pot), but I wish it was going to serve a better purpose.

I'd have no problem with it going straight to IFPA so they could work on new ways to expand the hobby and cover some costs they have...but going to SCS and nationals winners seems to do nothing to promote pinball to me. Maybe I'm wrong and just don't understand the perceived benifits of this fee?

If more money is wanted for SCS winner then make the people that qualify and play in SCS pay more at SCS, not the first time tourney players.

What I interpret from Josh's posts is that his thougts are a higher prize pool for SCS and Nationals creates a buzz. The ability to say "A SCS winner will take home $500 to $5000 in prize money depending on the state and a Nationals winner will take home 10k and a NIB pinball machine" is some how prestigious. He seems to think this prestige and buzz will then allow him to somehow bring in more corporate sponsors which will add to the prize pool further. It seems the unltimate goal and payoff is to then leverage all this into some sort of reality TV show.

Seems like the simplest way, but amazingly it appears that even Josh baulks at this idea as he does not want to just pay in $200 entyr for the SCS in IL so his brother or now Elwin can take home the prize. I do find it funny that his own logic is not extended any further.

A $200 entry fee into the SCS would serve the same purpose and ensure the fixed payout for every state and national entry fee.

Pinball still keeps its crown of the hobby with the worst cheapskates.

Player registration fees... league dues... entry fees... coin drop... everyone isfine with and dont nitpick where the money goes.... but a $1 ifpa fee... holy s&@$! Why would i want to subsidize other players!

Amazing

seems like a pretty obvious difference to me. Those all support local pinball.

this leaves the city and goes to elite players.

I am not sure why it is so difficult for some to understand that.

How is it possible that this thread continues to rage a 16 pages?

It's a dollar. Pay it or move to Wisconsin.

Because people love to argue!!

Keyboard rage!!

Destroying pinball!!

$1!!!!

LOL. The so called elite players have to come from somewhere. Why should they supply their own prize pool anyway? That makes zero sense.