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.

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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.

so pay the tax or hit the road.

Got it.

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.

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.

the dollar game analogy is spot on... only we are being told to ship our dollars somewehere else with someone else playing for them.

Again, it's not just a dollar, it is 16 to 20% of the typical entry fee in local tourneys being skimmed off the top for events most people will never attend or to which they be invited to play.

Nobody has made a legitimate case of how bigger pots at state and national tourneys further develops the game of pinball. The only case I see provided is that there is some "need" to get more serious players to come to these events...players who are already established within the pinball community. That isn't growing or improving the game for most players, the same ones being asked to foot the bill.

If there is an "opt-out" option to not be ranked but still play in events and not pay the dollar, I would pick it every time. If it comes down to not having that option available, then I will no longer play IFPA sanctioned events. That's a crappy conclusion, but it's what this tax demands. i am not going to settle for " pay it or else." Again, i am not dissing IFPA, as I have stated i would absolutely be willing to pay a membership fee not tied to the quantity of events in which I play. It's a damned shame that this is where we evidently are at. It goes against much of what makes this community so great. Love of money...pffft.

To answer your first question: The difference is that the money is staked to that event, in which you are playing. The winners of that prize pool competed against you that day and all of the money was paid out to participants. I really disagree with the notion of " you weren't going to win it any way, so what's the difference?" 1) I never enter an event assuming I am going to lose. 2) The money should be for that event and those players, not a windfall for some other schmuck who has nothing to do with your local events. This aspect is why the proposed tax is just that...a tax, or redistribution of funds within the community.

Second Answer: Why would a noob or someone casually playing be willing to support games in which they would virtually never have a shot to play? To help elite players with no upside in furthering the game to feel more enticed to participate? Keeping the money in local events and promoting competition is what grows the game of pinball. This proposed fee is about growing the BUSINESS of pinball. That's 2 different things. Some of us are not interested in that aspect. We shouldn't be FORCED to pay, and when people answer that by saying, "Then don't play," they are doing exactly what you asked about...hindering the game of pinball.

Local events drive interest. IFPA rankings also absolutely add a layer of competition in the big picture of things. I want to be fair here. I do feel that the fee proposal and continued ranking with points are 2 separate issues. Many folks who oppose the fees have posited that they would support IFPA with an annual fee if financial maintenance is needed. Personally, I feel the proposal holds the casual player hostage with the value the rankings do provide, at the benefit to a very small contingent of players, who already are generally hardcore pinheads. That's not a knock on the elite players, but rather the proposed fee and the alleged benefits. Just because someone SAYS they intend to benefit the game, doesn't make it so. Unless the prize amounts start getting significantly bigger, and by that, I'm talking hundreds of thousands bigger, I don't see how the media is going to wet their pants over a $10k purse versus $2k.

The other aspect I see is that pinball is currently on the upswing with organic growth of interest and participation. I'm just waiting for the "See, our numbers grew and the fee worked." yeah, it's already growing at a nice clip. The fee is just a reward for people already in the game, gleaned from the preexisting interest and participation of an already growing community. The growth in pinball is already occurring and not because of prize purses at State or Nationals.

If it's available, you'd rather alienate players than follow the available process?

#growthegamethroughselectiveelimination

So why was the post deleted telling folks to just take it out of the pot without telling the players?

Seems to me there's an undertone of underhanded BS in the way some of you are approaching the topic.

I am not a TD, but the guy who runs ours is on the opposite side of this issue from me and has posted in this thread. That being said, his integrity is freaking excellent and full disclosure of where the money goes has always been given. I do not expect that to change.

If you make the big show in WSOP you pay your own way or get a sponsorship. Other players are not expected to fork over cash to support other players, aside from those monies won in the course of the competition.

Strange concepts, eh? And I'd say Poker's model would be one where a niche game grew exponentially into a money and prestige rich 'sport.'

And one other thing, folks have offered up alternatives that grow interest in competitive pinball, they just might not appeal to you. Some of them are proven winners that cost no money, yet here we are...being told there is ONE way to achieve the goal.

Alternative Solution

Objective 1: Increase prestige of competitive pinball events and drive overall interest in the game.

Objective 2: Significantly increase pot/ purse/ payout for state and national events.

Objective 3: Accomplish 1 and 2 while also providing a fun and competitive environment, regardless of skill level

Objective 4: Give back to the contributors to Objectives 1 and 2

What if IFPA were to sponsor Prestige Series Tournaments, or PSX , for short. IFPA would designate a 9 day window in each quarter of the year in which tournament hosts could declare, " This is our PSX for Quarter 1, and it will be on Feb 16th." Each player pays $10 to enter the PSX, with full disclosure that $5 is for building the purses for State and National games as IFPA prescribes. That would be the only purpose for the first $5 and then the remainder would fund the local pot, as usual.

The caveat: IFPA offers double points for the Prestige Series Tournaments, with a player being eligible for one double shot per quarter of the year. Players can play all of the events they wish, but only one declared result for each player would be eligible for the bonus. Only designated events within the prescribed window each quarter will qualify their players for the bonus. I considered making players play in their own states, but that would be a mess, too, for various reasons. Players would declare before an event starts that this is their PSX event for the quarter and TDs would turn it in, so as to eliminate players from using their best result in the 9 day window, especially in areas where multiple tournaments abound.

Wins:
1) IFPA increases funds for State and National events
2) Local interest grows as well, with the increased availability of points
3) Players still get to play for their dollars, while also 'knowingly' contribute to the growth of pinball at a bigger stage
4) Venues currently hosting tourneys would not be asked to sponsor events or change their operating margins whatsoever, with the added prospect of increased interest and play.
5) simplifies administration of fees for TDs, in that it would be one shot per quarter instead of a constant accumulation.

Risks:
1) Too difficult to administer 1 PSX event per quarter. I don't know, that's why I am scattershooting this idea out there
2) Elite players will have a big event and double up an already huge points value for their tournament. Maybe so, but this already happens sometimes. Points are out there to be earned, and these are for the growth of pinball.
3) JNX has dumb ideas and needs to stick to watching Matlock reruns...

oops

No offense, but just because someone is new to pinball doesn't mean they are new to 2nd grade math.

I'm really digging the "We won't tell them anything" approach. Did not realize our TD was such a rarity, as well as the resident " rule checker" members who are anal as hell about double checking every little detail.

I guess you have players so excited to see Aerosmith or Dialed-In that their wallet just flies open...

Nah, my post was from the local perspective. ""Hey Mr TD, we had 25 players tonight and the winner won $40. Shouldn't it have been $50 at the 40% pot?"

I don't know about your communities, but there are rule nazis in ours who would flip their lid if everything wasn't up front. As a noob, I absolutely asked where the money went and how the payouts worked.

I believe it is a mistake to not have full disclosure, but no, I did not mean that as a player, I would expect to know the State and National breakout of funds, although it would be interesting. I would understand my TD didn't determine that aspect, and that $1 would be going to IFPA for that purpose.

You make it sound like those are incremental benefits in comparison with a new player in 2017.

That is not true at all.

Dont whitewash it. Just say what it is for crisakes. I'll say it again, when the alleged advocates of the change cannot sell the bill if goods, it is telling that even you folks see the BS factor in the whole deal.

But we were told the money was to support State and National tournaments. Now it's a "payment for points?" We were told IFPA would not be taking a cut of the money and it was 100% for the tourneys. Is that still true?

Making it up as we go along, eh?

but many of us have agreed to paying a fee for IFPA, even if it differs from the $1 tax per event. You are trying to have it both ways and that is why this topic is split almost evenly down the middle among avid players of the game.

Charge $5 per year to join IFPA. Don't nickel and dime the living hell out of every event in the name of "operational costs" or "we gonna sweeten the pot for nationals."

Make up your mind what direction you are trying to go. Let people decide on its merit if they support it or not. Don't hold people hostage to getting to play in their local events because turdhead TD won't let folks opt out of the tax.

Yet, you are working from the assumption that participation will not decrease with the $1 tax. That would be short-sighted, at best.

You cannot count monthly events as 1, as IFPA would be drawing $1 from me at each event, or $12 per year.

If i played every event available to me locally, and that is within about a 30 mile radius, mainly at 2 different locations; I could end up paying almost $100/ year to IFPA.

So in asking your economic question, look in the mirror and ask, "What is IFPA giving this player for $100 that wouldn't be the same for a $5 fee?"

In the breakdown of fees and players by PG on the IFPA site, over 2/3 of the players played 5 events or less. So tell me again, if we're driving interest in pinball and leveraging the cache of "points/ rankings" why the $5 wouldn't increase funds versus charging a $1 tax per event?

It changes the payout. Simple math.

I honestly cannot believe the number of people advocating, "Just sneak it by them"

Your members must be a bunch of morons. Seriously.

You do not administer the free events in which I participate. I also acknowledged the integrity with which you handle the league, earlier in the thread. I am discussing the bigger point, not just poor little me.

The point remains: Whether the winner pays the fees or someone subsidizes the event, it is still changing how things currently work. The benefits for all but a very few players do not change, but the payouts change on an average of 16 to 20%. I am disputing the cost/ benefit ratio to the process as a whole, especially with regard to players who play many events. I have already described how my current opportunities to play would yield IFPA $6 to 8$ per month if I played the bi-weekly selfie league( currently free,) the weekly Tuesday night XXX games( free,) and the monthly( currently $5 with a proper payout.) That does not even count the League games you are describing played in the southern location.

The free events have absolutely grown interest in the game of pinball and bolstered local competition within the community. The paid events are well attended and have always been administered properly.

I am not confused. I do not suck at math. I do take issue with folks( not you) saying to just sneak it by, or suggesting that "players won't even realize I am taking a dollar out." It's insulting, to say the least, if not outright criminal.

22 events is indeed the number of events I played, but the point still remains, why should I pay $22 to IFPA versus someone who plays 2-3 events? Ifpa doesn't provid the venues, host the tournaments, or administer the games. Why should our free events become pay events?

Paid services?

Interesting tax work around...

Shady to say the least, and the tone of deception by some TDs isn't bothersome to you?

Good luck!

I'm certainly not threatening legal action, not by a long shot.

I am attempting to discuss the topic while it is still in the inception faze, even if it appears there is zero room for debate by the members which comprise the organization.

"The decision has been made, so just love it" even if the benefits are undefined, the implementation is still cloudy, and the motives are convoluted as hell.

I guess that's good enough for about 52% of the folks...

Free events with respect to my usage are events where players at a venue pay any regular charges to play, whether it is coin drop or membership/ day pass fees. The events are free, in that no money is collected for the actual tournament, as in, there is no purse to be won. These have indeed driven new interest and 'paid' tournament participation.

I'm loving the calls for exclusivity and culling the herd. You are absolutely destoying the business model, folks.

The idea is to use the underlings to fund the Big Fish. Can't do that if the minnows aren't welcome.

If it is not a free tournament, then how many dollars were collected/ awarded for the tournament?

That's right, sportsfans, ZERO.

the community on the board is pretty much 50/50 on the deal.

So it's cool to have no options aside from not participating? Additionally, now we're discussing the topic in differing groups.

That doesn't sound divisive to you? or is that the objective?

The objective has changed throughout the thread.

The stated intent does not necessarily equal the actual objective at certain times in the thread.

Some, like yourself, seem content to just accept whatever it is thrown out there, regardless of logic or impact.

Let's stop discussing it and it will miraculously change into a logical, well thought out, effective strategy...

The real measure will be the rate of change in Jan 2019.

The growth above is on the "old" free system.