That would clarify that an organzer must pay 50% after it is passed. While currently unclear, I would still argue that it is required under (at least one interpretation of) the curent rules. Do they need to do so now? If so, a comment in “TD corner” might be useful as I know of at least one case where they have already paid less than 50% for a section when the combined prizes were > $500. And they are designing future multi-section tournaments with exactly that option in mind.
Here is a question that I had suggested to them be sent in for possible inclusion in the rating supplement:
Tournament T has 2 sections:
S1: With prizes $400 b/20
S2: With prizes $400 b/20
Attendance is 5 in S1 and 15 in S2.
What prizes are given:
A. $100 in S1 and $300 in S2
B. $200 in S1 and $300 in S2
C. $200 in S1 and $200 in S2
There is no rule that cannot be subverted or ‘interpreted’ to get around the original intent, which I think is fairly clear:
If the EVENT advertises $500 or more in prizes, it should have to pay out at least 50% of EACH based-on prize. That should be the case regardless of how the event is split up into sections.
All that really does, though, is force the focus from the section level to the ‘event’ level. Are side-events separate events? What if two separately advertised events are held at the same site on the same day?
OK, how about this situation. Let’s say a tournament advertises
What prizes must be paid? I say the whole $700, especially if it is a Grand Prix event.
Alex Relyea
I agree with John Hillery that, when it comes to the 50% minimum, allowing each section to be considered separately is an invitation to serious abuse.
Yet I also agree with Terry that that’s what the current rule seems to say.
The Delegate motion does not clarify anything. It seems aimed only at how certain options are to be worded in TLAs.
The word “total” could mean either “total of all the prizes in a section” or “total of all the prizes in the tournament”.
It’s time to take Tim Just’s advice, and shift the debate from what the rule now says to what it SHOULD say.
Tim’s version clarifies the 50% minimum, but un-clarifies the proportional part. I’d suggest the following instead (including changing the name of the rule):
32D. Multiple-section tournaments. In a tournament with multiple sections, if separate based-on goals are announced for each section, then prizes in each section must be paid at least in proportion to the turnout in that section. If the based-on goal is announced for any combination of sections, then the sections involved are treated as a group, and the prizes in that group must be paid at least in proportion to the turnout in that group. In either case, if the total advertised prize fund for the entire tournament is more than $500, at least 50% of each advertised prize must be paid in each section.
Bill Smythe
Maybe it would be better to leave the specifics in 32C4 and simply replace that last sentence by: “In either case, all sections muat be treated as a single group with respect to 32C4 requirements.” That way future delegate-mandated changes would only cause updates to 32C4 rather than to both 32C4 and 32D.
Bill,
First, did Tim actually agree that the current wording allows an unintentional loophole, and that our interpretation was wrong?
More accurately, I think Tim is saying that our interpretation was correct, and that THAT is the loophole.
Bill Smythe
Maybe, although I worry about the slight loss of clarity, and thus the chance that somebody else will find a loophole.
What’s REALLY needed is a rewrite of 32C4, as well, dividing it into two rules – one dealing with the proportional requirement, the other with the 50% minimum. Then 32D could be tweaked (and perhaps divided) accordingly.
Bill Smythe
While I agree that a clarification of 32D at the next Delegates meeting would be a good idea, I do not concede that it is necessary. All that’s really needed is a ruling (should come from the ED, if we had an ED … but that’s another story) stating that it does not allow an organizer to pay less than 50% of a tournament’s total prize fund and of each advertised prize, and that any other construction is an accidental ambiguity resulting from clumsy wording.
John, IMHO that’s something that the Board should do, not the ED, if and when we have one again. (A good ED would take the revised policy to the Board for their comments if not their assent.)
I think Bill made a few too many unilateral decisions as ED, not necessarily bad ones, but policy changes should generally be kicked around a bit before being put into effect, and that’s certainly going to be true with any reinterpretations of the ‘based-on’ rules.
This is a political question, which will not be resolved any time soon. However, in my opinion, the Board should not (and does not, under the Bylaws) have the authority to do that sort of thing. The Board is supposed to set policy based on the instructions of the Delegates (“none of its acts shall conflict with actions taken by the Board of Delegates”). Those policies are supposed to be carried out by the office staff under the ED. The reason for including the hiring of an ED in the Bylaws was, at least in part, to prevent elected officials from interfering with the day-to-day operations of the USCF.
I believe the Board should either:
or
Either is fine with me, it’s up to the next ED and his/her Board to work out what things the Board is just notified about and what things they actively participate in.
Actually, this ruling should come from the Rules Committee, but it’s often hard to get the Chair of that committee to act on anything. I don’t think he reads this forum.
Bill Smythe
If you’re referring to David Kuhns (Carol Jarecki is co-chair of Rules according to EBN #2), I wonder if he even knows this forum exists?
I’m pretty sure he was involved in the workshop discussion in Florida that resulted in the latest changes to the ‘based-on’ rules.
This is getting away from the original subject, though.
ok, i get the message.
to answer the question, no, i have not yet used this forum.
in fact, i was only recently aware that it existed.
This is my second attempt, lets see if it works this time (my reply failed on the first attempt)
to answer the specific question relating to this topic.
I do not believe the rule needs modification. 32C4 applies, and 32D is not redundant.
The original question:
Assume you have a 2-section tournament with prizes:
Open $400 b/20
Reserve $400 b/20
Suppose the Open draws 5 and the Reserve 15. I think that everyone would agree that the Reserve would pay $300 ($40015/20). The question that came up locally is how much the Open is require to pay. Is it $100 ($4005/20) or $200 (50%, since the tournament had total prizes over $500)?
The correct interpretation (IMHO) and the intended meaning of the rule is:
Hence the correct prize award is $300 for the reserve and $200 for the Open.
34D applies since each of the prizes was based on attendance within the section (clearly stated)
If the event would have stated Prize fund: $800 based on 40 total entries, Open $400 ($200 guaranteed) and Reserve $400 ($200 Guaranteed), then the correct prize distribution (20 attendees total) could be $200 for each prize. 34D does not apply, and is therefore not redundant.
As far as the delegates motion and the workshop in Florida:
The discussion centered around organizers who abuse the “based on” prize announcements. It is a rule that the based on number must be a number that is reasonable, and that the organizer believes will attend. The abuser wishes to inflate the announced prizes by basing attendance on a less than relistic number. This is what the motion was attempting to deter.
The motion passed by the delegates watered down the workshop proposal, but still made some restrictions on advertising. In particular, as stated in other posts, the guaranteed amounts for each prize must be specified clearly in the TLA, immediately following or included within the listing of the prize itself. Secondly, it disallows the use a prize dollar amount in the title of the event unless that dollar amount is guaranteed.
Welcome to this forum! I hope we can hear a lot from you in the future, on a whole range of topics (including Pave the Way for Increment in the Tournament Organization forum).
In my opinion, the very existence (and size) of this thread is proof that the rule DOES need to be clarified. Perhaps the rules committee could issue such a clarification along the following lines, post it on the web, and include it in the rating supplement:
“The $500 minimum advertised prize fund in 32C4 is intended to apply to the entire tournament, not to each section separately. If a tournament advertises a prize fund of over $500 in all sections combined, then all prizes in all sections must be paid at a rate of at least 50%.”
Concerning the Florida delegates motion, apparently you agree with some of the rest of us that it was aimed at advertising, rather than at the rule itself.
Again, welcome to the forum!
Bill Smythe
Please excuse my ignorance, but why would someone want to make a tournament that has based on prizes for each section.
What happened to the axiom KISS …just keep it simple. A based on prize for the whole tournament is less compicated and easier for players to understand.
David: I second Bill’s welcome to the forum.
Bill: I assume, then, that we were wrong (or maybe I was wrong) that 32D provided an exception to the 50% payout requirement?
-Terry Winchester
"Bill: I assume, then, that we were wrong (or maybe I was wrong) that 32D provided an exception to the 50% payout requirement? "
Not so much as an exception but more as an additional restriction.
Note that it can work both ways:
Open based on 20
Reserve based on 20
(32D option)
Example 1: Open gets 5 = 50% payout; Reserve gets 15 = 75% payout.
Example 2: Open gets 10 = 50% payout; Reserve gets 35 = 100% payout
Combined (not 32D)
Total based on 40
Example 1: 20 total = 50% payout across the board
Example 2: 45 total = 100% payout across the board
Example 2 is less expensive to the organizer in the “combined” event; example 1 is less expensive in the seperated event.
General rule of thumb that I use. If there is more than one way of computing prizes (interpretation of the rule) I compute the prizes using all methods, then distribute the largest amount to the players. You cannot go wrong.
In a nutshell… Budget your events wisely, and even though an individual event may occassionally lose money, you will be ahead in the long run (i.e. the players will be happy and continue to support your events)
I agree somewhat, in that adding this explination as a TD tip and other sources of info to the membership is a good idea. I thought (at least the way I read 32C4) it already says this, but additional clarification is not necessarily a bad thing.
Absolutely! (and directed at abusers of the rule)
That was the intent
[I wrote the motion, but modified by the delegates]
Hay! Is their a Spill Shacker on this thing?
(and I abviously am not using the “quote” feature correctly)