MOT player eligibility poll -- Facebook members

Should we allow Facebook members to qualify for our MOT's?

  • Yes, without any Fargo limit

    Votes: 6 20.7%
  • Yes, with a Fargo limit of 650

    Votes: 6 20.7%
  • Yes with a Fargo limit of 700

    Votes: 4 13.8%
  • No, players need to 100% qualify here in the forum

    Votes: 13 44.8%

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .

mr3cushion

Verified Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,596
From
Cocoa Beach, FL
There you go :LOL: :LOL:
"unlike some of the people voting and commenting, since we have more votes than attendees lol."

I created the poll and even let people vote anonymously. It would just be a shame to have something for a current tournament decided by a bunch of people NOT GOING, and in some cases NEVER HAVE GONE.


Maybe it's not a good idea to attempt to, 'shame' members into attending events under this umbrella.

Don't take it so personal. Sometimes, 'Successful' events are just that with, 'Quality' instead of the 'Quantity' of entrants.
 
Last edited:

Tyronedng

New Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2022
Messages
22
I also voted for player participating versus what your Fargo score is. I just like to go a tournament with a nice turn out. I have registered and like to see my name on the list
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
11,153
From
New Hampshire
"unlike some of the people voting and commenting, since we have more votes than attendees lol."

I created the poll and even let people vote anonymously. It would just be a shame to have something for a current tournament decided by a bunch of people NOT GOING, and in some cases NEVER HAVE GONE.


Maybe it's not a good idea to attempt to, 'shame' members into attending events under this umbrella.

Don't take it so personal. Sometimes, 'Successful' events are just that with, 'Quality' instead of the 'Quantity' of entrants.
If you are feeling shamed I would suggest you take your own advice and not take it so personally lol. In no way shape or form am I trying to shame anyone into attending. however I do think it is a bit questionable for anyone to get that worked up over something that does not affect them in the slightest.
 

mr3cushion

Verified Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,596
From
Cocoa Beach, FL
I still have the ability to feel shame for, 'Others!' I didn't write the seemingly, 'Innuendo.'

Worked up! The Pot calling the Kettle black! LOL!
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
2,205
Maybe there needs to be a mission statement for the organization and another for the forum, lol.

Or I suppose you could just shut down the website and focus on the FB group. I mean, several members have alluded to the group dying off and there is some truth to that. I know several members have splintered off and do more texting amongst themselves than post here. Then you have to wonder what would be left if you took away the Happy Birthday and WWYD threads...

Someone posted something in this thread about, if the FB group were embraced, how we might look forward to old guys like Ike, and Jose, and Efren looking to play in MOT events. But I have to ask: why would we look to that as a positive? If I want to play those guys, as well as a whole slew of other top-flight players across the age spectrum, I can go the DCC, or The Open, or any number of other events. And I've probably played in more of those events than anyone else here. When I'm in the mood it's great.

But the MOTs are a different flavor event. Unless I'm grossly mistaken, they are about friendship and camaraderie. So no, I don't want to see Ike, or Jose, or Efren, or Varner, or any other player I'm not acquaintances or friends with here at a MOT. The VB event hasn't drawn a big turn out for a number of reasons. I suspect future events will fare better.

And unless it's just about numbers for the sake of numbers, we don't need the FB crowd.

Lou Figueroa
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
11,153
From
New Hampshire
Many thanks to all of you who took the time to contribute thoughtful comments and vote. It was a fairly close vote obviously, reflecting divided opinion -- no surprise there! Yet, based on the feedback I have received from the players who are signed up, that subset also favors allowing Facebook qualification, so it looks like that is the way we will try going. Most of those in favor of opening to Facebook also favored a Fargo limit, so for this time, let's try a Fargo limit that is a compromise of 670. I could be wrong, but I believe that number is mathematically prorated along the 6/4 voting lines of the majority that favored a limit.

Thanks again.
 

Miller

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
5,173
From
East St. Louis Area
Many thanks to all of you who took the time to contribute thoughtful comments and vote. It was a fairly close vote obviously, reflecting divided opinion -- no surprise there! Yet, based on the feedback I have received from the players who are signed up, that subset also favors allowing Facebook qualification, so it looks like that is the way we will try going. Most of those in favor of opening to Facebook also favored a Fargo limit, so for this time, let's try a Fargo limit that is a compromise of 670. I could be wrong, but I believe that number is mathematically prorated along the 6/4 voting lines of the majority that favored a limit.

Thanks again.

a conclusion in search of a justification.

🤮
 

Jimmy B

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
6,444
Well I did post comments in this thread but I certainly did NOT vote. Just wanted to state it FTR...
 
  • Like
Reactions: lll
Top