Joe - This issue will be addressed. For any area where this is an issue, those funds will go to the IFPA as an administrative fee for being endorsed. They will NOT be paid back out. I'm keeping them. What I do with them later will be our business.

some/ a few are/have done this. Thise that have done it, it was under the table and not put out on a state or national stage. Very different. Worth mention that it is actually a VERY small % of events in the state (less than 10% last year) which did entry fees/payouts and all the largest events dont

$1 is not too much. The use of the funds are questionable and the tactic/manner is unacceptable for me personally plus at least 50% of the other TDs based on discussions amongs all the WI TDs. WI will still have sanctioned events but sounds like their will be a new sanctioning body (one that charges no fee or tax and one that specifically does not funnel money from the larger player base to a few at the top)

similar to so other stating their opinion over... it is just an opinion.

I wont be waiting a year to see. I am too vested in WI based compeitive pinball and am unwilling to let things languish for an entire year just for the social experiement. Still sucks that my hand was forced and I think there are better/easier ways that alienate less of the player base, but Josh has made his decision and is sticking to it.

I still think there is a very simple compromise for all of this.
1. Want to have your ranking tracked? Annual fee of $5 Dont pay and you are repressed from being visible but still factor in as Player 1, 2, 3, 4, etc...
2. Want to be eligible for IFPA based SCS and National events? Then pay $1 per person for the prize pool as outlined from Josh
3. Dont care about the IFPA SCS or Nationals, then just dont pay $1 per event and you are all good, just cant compete in the IFPA based end of year events.

Track everyone the same as you always have. This maintains the current systems integrity (still so dumb to have events where someone that does not win can win in the IFPA eyes. This provides a safe way for IFPA to see how many are willing to pay the $5 tracking fee but not the $1 tournament fee. This allows people to still see where they stand and run an end of year non-IFPA state event if they choose. This allows the IFPA to run the social experiement without losing overal integtiry of the ranking system and allows them to more easily hit the reset button in 2019 if needed.

The current experiement calls into question the integrity of the entire ranking system, burns some TDs/players, and makes it hard to recover.

I think this has become a case of digging in your heals rather than finding compromise that could actually benefit Josh's vision in the longer term without hurting it in the shorter term.

It is obvious you dont understand the opposite perspcetive nor have you really tried. I do continually find it interesting/predictible that some of the biggest propoenents are players with a shot at the $$$$ at teh end of year events.

Keep on these guys! The conspiracy will reveal itself. I'm not saying it's Aliens BUT ....

Having a website full of tournament results where 92% of the players listed say "Suppressed Player" isn't something I think is positive for the IFPA with this solution. Plus the money to be raised is not significant enough to matter (see previous post about how many people in the US register at no charge).

I get this as a compromised alternative, except that we lose our biggest point of leverage to get those players 'not interested' in SCS to help fund this whole thing. The money raised by strictly pulling from those interested in the SCS/Nationals dwarfs being able to pull from the entire field of events. We need those TD's and players that care about WPPR's and the entertainment they provide to fuel this fire.

To me the best way to see who will pay the $1 fee is with the only alternative being . . .

pasted_image (resized).jpeg

ever heard the tale of the frog in a pot of water?

So because the $1 endorsement fee goes over so well . . . we try the next year to bump it up to $2?

-or-

The $1 endorsement fee goes over so poorly . . . we bump it up to $2 to try and chase after our losses of all of the events that dropped out of being IFPA endorsed?

I just need to know which path is more likely

You obviously haven't heard this tale before. In the end, IFPA slowly boils all competitive pinball players to death. The funny thing is, they don't even notice it's happening ...

I heard the frog jumped out of the pot before we even turned the flame on in protest of the whole thing

Yup, I think the IFPA will be stunned when they see how many states will have this sort of legal problem - Louisiana is one of them. They will need to work this out in some way.

Absolutely. For Louisiana if this is a statewide issue then we'll collect those funds and put them to use towards IFPA expenses instead of towards the LA SCS/Nationals pool.

Well, that wasn't the interpretation I was suggesting. I've tried not to make personal pokes or sarcasm part of my responses in this thread. I have seen responses from some participants suggesting this is basically a partisan issue to some - sides have been drawn and you are here or there. Actually, I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of the "it's just a $1" argument. It's an attempt, purposeful or not, to essentially deny that there could be an issue with going in this direction. I'm not suggesting you are trying to start with a $1 and start jacking up the price. Just that many people arguing against this are not arguing against the $1 because 'it is too much'. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen that as a major argument anywhere here, or on tiltforums.

Hilton's long response with alternatives seems to me to contain some potential alternatives that could likely do just what Josh/IFPA want and they don't seem to be any part of a consideration. If this was just a post of what was going to happen, hell or highwater (ie. IFPA has decided, there is no discussion), then it makes no sense to participate in a faux 'discussion' of the changes. However, since you (Josh/IFPA) have engaged in conversation then it might suggest you'd be open to re-examining the 'experiment' from the perspective a scientist might take - try to the most feasible experiment that poses the least potential harm to the existing system. The mixed $5 admin fee and $1 state/NCS fee seems like a viable alternative even if it has issues. To essentially close off discussion seems disingenuous when you've been participating so far. Though, in all fairness, you've never suggested you were taking suggestions really but then it begins to feel less like IFPA, and more like JFPA. That's fine too, it's your baby but it's been fostered and built with many hands on deck and lots of community.

Pinball/IFPA/ranking/whatever it's classification, doesn't have to be a win-loss situation. However, if this isn't and/or has never been up for discussion, please just state that blankly. It won't necessarily stop the counterposts and suggestions, but at least it would be definitive in a manner that is clear.

Oh, and I'm not trying to be snarky about the opening comment Josh. I commend your patience in many spheres of this conversation though you hold a trump card that really suggests you should be patient - the final say. It just seems that developing a broader community with wider recognition should be a community process, and not just with the community supporting the top tier. It would be nice to think some of the alternative 'experiments' here would be given credence or consideration.

It's just not only, or mostly even, about 'the $1'.

This would additionally seem to counter the purpose of the $1 fee to begin with. Okay everyone, toss in $1 to help increase the SCS and NCS pots but if you compete in these states, we'll still take your dollar, you just won't have a shot at getting it back. If only there was a better way to make this uniform for all players everywhere. Maybe it's time pinball players ran for office and fixed all these issues But we can't have pinball wizard become the new anthem.

Just lookout the johnny law does not take to kindly to work around like that. That is what happened with the bingo pinball.
Even more so when it's the same take out as other states with same payment system Also still may have the issue of the state winner being able to play for the National pot.

And that can really kill the state events as well why should I play there with the same take out with an very small state finale pot vs playing in an other state with the same take out but with an much bigger state pot.

Nothing is ever final until it's actually implemented. Had I pushed this to the State Reps first and had overwhelming negative feedback, it wouldn't have made it out of that level of discussion. Now that's it's pushed publicly (Facebook/Pinside/Tilt Forums), there seems to be this sense that if I don't compromise then I'm not listening.

I'm definitely listening, and am following through on things based on the MAJORITY of the feedback I'm getting. That feedback being mostly positive for the exact methodology we're implementing.

You mentioned Hilton's alternatives as something that was viable. I tried to clearly respond why I don't think that will work to meet our goals. To me that's "positive discussion" between Hilton and myself, that the community can follow along with. It was definitely taken into consideration on my end . . . I simply don't agree with that plan of action.

There's no work around . . . we're an association that offers the endorsement of events to be included in our world rankings. Nobody is forcing anyone to be part of this. We need these funds to operator our association. If an event wants to pay for trophies to give out to their event, they pay the trophy store. If an event wants to award WPPR points they pay the IFPA for the right to do so.

If johnny law forces me to offer our services at no charge, then I guess my question to them would be how we're supposed to make money as a for-profit LLC.

How will success for this be measured? I haven't seen that yet.

maybe if can get online multi sate poker legal and on sports betting then it can help stuff like this.

Right now I see issues with laws to cover daily fantasy sports / Online Sweepstakes, Contests and Giveaways / etc can trip this up with each state having it own rules.

It may be easier under the law and make things more even (to be fair state to sate if only some can give in to an NCS pot or some are capped at X%) to just have local state only pots.

Ultimately this will be a discussion between all the State Reps once we're maybe 3-4 months in for 2018. There I can get local feedback on how things are going, how things are being implemented, etc.

The most important thing to me is that the number of people "playing competitive pinball" continues to grow. If events that were previously endorsed are continuing as non-endorsed events, and we're hearing that players are continuing to show up as they did previously, then that's great.

If we see tournaments that reported weekly start to report monthly/quarterly/annually to exploit the fee loophole, but they are still PLAYING weekly, that's that great.

If we see a material drop in the number of events being organized (either as points or non-points events), then THAT is a big red flag that this isn't successful.

I don't think I worded it right

They may say each player need to pay up on there own and not have the TD be an proxy for that in the admin only states.

But if state 1 has if it's funds go out and kick into state 1 + NCS pot and then state 2 has it go to admin same system and same cost then you can't really give state 2 trophy's stuffed with cash vs real cash as an work around.

Or state 3 may see that people in state 1 are paying the same fee as us at each event and take an hard look at the events / finales in there state.

Also the state that the NCS is in may have it's own legal issues as well.

Now for the very long shot do you really want the players to have deal with jock taxes in the state of the NCS and the state they play SCS in if it is not there home state?

What about asking the local TD's do the leg work?

tournaments that reported monthly start to report annually having ghost players that only do 2-3 events out of 12 but still being listed as in the event vs under the old system of being put down for the 2-3 events of 12 they show up at.

Joe - You worded it fine. I'm saying if you want to take this to the extreme, we should legally be able to collect all these fees by whatever method we want, in return for the services that IFPA provides.

If you're worried about the use of those funds, we have no problem keeping all of those funds in house and being able to pay wages to our volunteers for their service. With about 70 volunteers, we could easily eat up a ton of administrative costs actually offering money to these people for their time and effort.

This is the kind of response I can respect and appreciate. Particularly the last statement about compromise and listening, much better context.

It's more of an issue under the law with the pots that can very from area to area. But if you really want funds for admin stuff then there are ways to do it do with out making the local TD's do all of the leg work.

Now it may help to make it clear on splitting out the 2 issues boosting state / ncs pots and getting admin fees.

having admin fees tied to state pot funding system gets in the way and makes it harder to get past legal issues.

Now even just having the local TD just collect admin fees to remit them to the IFPA (with no state / NCS pot pay out)
still has some tax / accounting issues + maybe some legal issues with an big prize at NCS (don't want to rant on to much). But then an small local only (event only state pot) will not likely trigger issues.

It was multiple times. Arguments that the fee will run off casual players (because they are used to free events). Arguments that the fee is some large percentage of the fees (again... because they charge so little). It's been labored over many times. Then all the conspiracy theories about how the money is being robbed from Peter to pay Paul, etc.

When it comes to competitive pinball PAPA and IFPA are the worldwide leaders.

PAPA instituted a $5 registration fee per entrant to all of their circuit events and also changed qualifying format to their championship that occurred earlier in this month. They made the changes internally and then announced it publicly. There was a lot of complaining like usual and it resulted in PAPA needing to sell their location and expand.

IFPA announces $1 per player per sanctioned event and we get the same complaining.

Everyone seems to think they can do it better than PAPA and IFPA but in the end they don't or are wrong.

You guys either do it or you don't and its being done.

You guys sent $100 to Nationals this year. Its the same concept, so again you guys are doing this.

"If you want your results to be sanctioned and submitted to the IFPA site it costs $1 per player per event"

Thats a lot easier on the eyes and easier to digest than the repeated suggestion of a membership fee which Josh already mentioned 100 times he isn't going to do.

I understand your different perspective but I like what Josh/IFPA is doing and support it 100% . If the IFPA decides to use some of these suggestions in the future I'd support them also. Call me loyal or naive.. lol

So, in looking to increase pinball's exposure, this is how IFPA wants to present itself?

bowens_page (resized).png

Doesn't seem very much like a professional response to a principled stand from one of the top players in the world.

Follow the money....

John_I, Not sure why that comment deserves a down vote. Perhaps we just have different opinions of what professionalism at the international level means.

That's been our auto suppressed player page for the last 5 years. Suppressed player pages are not searchable by anyone, you manually have to know and type the IFPA player ID of any suppressed player in the URL to pull this page up.

So to answer your question it's absolutely not professional, but has nothing to do with Bowen.

By looking at their website, the main purpose of the IFPA seems to be first and foremost, supporting and directing attention to competitive pinball otherwise known as tournaments, aka "pinball as a sport".

It's probably a misnomer to say that their primary goal is to "increase pinball's exposure", but instead a secondary and slightly less (but still very) important goal.

At least that's my impression from visiting and reading through their website.

fair enough

But it has been said by IFPA that increasing the prize pot will increase exposure to attract more sponsors and thus competitions

The "they are making fun of Bowen" shitstorm weeks after he suppressed himself kind of caught me by surprise.

Every suppressed player gets that page and it's funny.

One day Towlie will have his revenge!

Not necessarily "thus more competitions" but more big name sponsors, means more exposure to the NON pinball-fan public. That's the real target. Growing the visibility of pinball overall with media exposure driven by the marketability of big tournaments with big jackpots.

That suppressed player page is awesome!
I've never seen it before, thanks for sharing.

Yup, you need to fix the spelling for "chosen".

I feel the fee is basically a tax on all sanctioned competitive pinball events and players that ends up in the hands of the top 1% competitors.

I don't see how making it more lucrative will grow the industry. The vast majority of competitors aren't in it for the money and the money doesn't make that much difference. The onus is on the TDs to act as cashiers -- not something they necessarily are excited about doing when there's no real incentive for them.

In traditional competitive industries, it's sponsors that fund the prize money pool. The fact that the IFPA wants players to fund it says a lot about the state of pinball and the degree to which those in the industry who profit from it, aren't motivated or can't see a return from traditionally funding competition the way it is in virtually every other competitive field.

Rather than get players to fund the hobby, I would have liked to have seen the IFPA approach Stern and get sponsorship of $50-100k for the tournament series. That would have been a win-win for everybody. The fee system is a losing proposition for the majority of competitive players. And it offers absolutely nothing to the one group that works the hardest for the IFPA and never sees hardly any return: Tournament Directors. The real value and asset to the competitive scene are the TDs, who in this latest proposal, get another 8 foot length of the shaft.

The pinball version of trickle-down-economics

why not have also some bigger events maybe at least 1 in each state with an pot seeded by the ipfa fees? open to anyone with no need to be in the state top 16? as well?

IMG_5752 (resized).PNG

Is there another format you could suggest where the bulk of the take doesn't end up in the hands of the winners?
Is there some new format drawing people where the inverse of that is popular?

Yes, it says the industry is still small.. there isn't a ton of money in it.. and pinball people are cheap.
And to say most competitive industries is sponsor funded... is naive. The buy-in model is alive and well.. and even when sponsors do contribute to the pool, participants are too.

Go for it.. do you think Stern's current level of commitment is due to something besides the IFPA engaging them and asking for as much as they can get?

Maybe JJP will pony up. After all, they're the best.

.
towelie-no_you_are (resized).png
towelie_tough_guy (resized).jpg

https://www.ifpapinball.com/coming-2018-official-ifpa-challenge-matches/

Just FYI for anyone interested.

Interesting

So these IFPA Challenge Matches are not for WPPR points but but does affect/effect your IFPA player ranking?

If there is no 30 day rule, can I challenge someone at a location before I submit to the calendar or do we need preaproval via the calendar before a match can take place.

It impacts your IFPA player RATING.

You can challenge and play the match before submitting to our calendar. We plan on just using the calendar process to generate the results submission that would be needed for you to submit. No preapproval needed, just consent from your opponent.

We're working on potentially developing a system to live challenge another player through our website/app, with the results then automatically just flowing through to our system. (White collar solution)

Worst case we can 'fake' the calendar submissions on these to be able to get the results in the system. (Blue collar solution)

Sounds really fun Josh. I could this being done a lot out on location, tournaments, leagues, etc. I think it's a great idea.

Sounds cool. I definitely have challenge matches a lot when friends come over. Its fun to go from game to game and talk sh*t. Now the match could actually mean something besides dollars.

After #dollargate we had some internal discussions about what we could do to continue to stimulate competitive play.

With the talk of so many factions looking into creating their own ranking system, we realized we already have a second ranking system that goes mostly ignored today.

This is our chance to push that system forward as the "free system for all" while continuing down the path with wppr's as our way of pushing our larger idea agenda.

At first we were only going to allow TD's to submit results without the endorsement fee needed, but the discussion moved forward from there on how to capture even MORE players.

That's where the Challenge Match idea came from, which opens up an IFPA system to literally anyone, at anytime, in any place.

I can easily see a future where the Ratings metric becomes the metric accepted by MOST players, while the WPPR metric is simply a metric used for the TOP players. Time will tell ...