Author Topic: Nats location?  (Read 33623 times)

Offline lp670sv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #150 on: February 12, 2012, 03:41:32 PM »
0
I still hold that declining a location a very-much deserved nationals over lack of showers is absurd.

Talk to an event planner and see what they say. Seemingly little things like this can cause huge problems. Rob understands that.

Offline Red

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4789
  • It takes time to build the boat.
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #151 on: February 12, 2012, 03:52:22 PM »
0
If TN doesn't get it the NE should not get it. Because of the fact that it had it in 2010.
Ironman 2016 and 2018 Winner.
3rd T1-2P 2018, 3rd T2-2P 2019
I survived the Flood twice.

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #152 on: February 12, 2012, 03:55:29 PM »
+1
The two main supporters for showers in the church are also from NY. Besides, your showers seem to be taken care of with other peoples' tears, so you have nothing to worry about.

This current debate seems to be more about NY arrogance than TN showers. Just because the NY group is the most prevalent on the Message Boards lately does not mean they deserve Nats. The Tournament Host Guide says that Cactus tries to spread the location of Nats throughout the country. A second Nats in the Northeast in three years does not meet that criteria.

...and this is, after all, a competition for who is best equipped to host the tournament.

This is where you are misguided. This is not a competition, otherwise MN would win every year. They have mattresses in the church for crying out loud.

Nats should be about keeping the game alive all across the country, not just in NY and MN. If Nats is never anywhere near entire regions of the country, then Redemption will systematically die in those regions.
My wife is a hottie.

Offline lp670sv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #153 on: February 12, 2012, 04:07:08 PM »
0
The NE is the next most prepared to host. That plays in to it just as much, if not more, than the actual location. It'd be great if we could have nats rotate locations but the location doesn't matter if the location isn't prepared enough to host. You want as many people as possible to come, but you also want those people to have a good experience so they will come back.

The two main supporters for showers in the church are also from NY. Besides, your showers seem to be taken care of with other peoples' tears, so you have nothing to worry about.

This current debate seems to be more about NY arrogance than TN showers. Just because the NY group is the most prevalent on the Message Boards lately does not mean they deserve Nats. The Tournament Host Guide says that Cactus tries to spread the location of Nats throughout the country. A second Nats in the Northeast in three years does not meet that criteria.

...and this is, after all, a competition for who is best equipped to host the tournament.

This is where you are misguided. This is not a competition, otherwise MN would win every year. They have mattresses in the church for crying out loud.

Nats should be about keeping the game alive all across the country, not just in NY and MN. If Nats is never anywhere near entire regions of the country, then Redemption will systematically die in those regions.


The ways in which you are wrong..let me count them.

1) Chronic is from PA, not NY.

2) I actually was going to comment on Chronic's repeatedly stating this, as it seems rude and uncalled for, but since Red wasn't responding I was assuming it's an inside joke. The replies do not represent the views of anyone but Chronic.

3) I wasn't aware that I was being arrogant for defending the potential decision of Rob Anderson, who knows better than any of us how nats needs to be planned. I can only hope you aren't letting your personal opinion of me reflect on NY's supposed "arrogance".

4) Me..Randall...occasionally Irish_Luck and Katedid. You're right we are totally the most prevelant we have 4 active members on a site with well over a thousand members.

5) Distant between Rochester NY - Boston MA 302 402 miles. Distance from Rochester MN to Nashville TN 760 miles. We may be in the same region as boston, but we aren't exactly close. You're putting more weight on region then on actual distance.

6) Rochester's bid is a college, complete with dorms, dining hall, a gym, soccer fields etc.

7) Gross exaggeration is hyperbolic.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 04:11:16 PM by lp670sv »

Chronic Apathy

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #154 on: February 12, 2012, 04:07:32 PM »
0
The two main supporters for showers in the church are also from NY. Besides, your showers seem to be taken care of with other peoples' tears, so you have nothing to worry about.

This current debate seems to be more about NY arrogance than TN showers. Just because the NY group is the most prevalent on the Message Boards lately does not mean they deserve Nats. The Tournament Host Guide says that Cactus tries to spread the location of Nats throughout the country. A second Nats in the Northeast in three years does not meet that criteria.

I'm not from New York, so if you're referring to me, please fact-check before making assumptions. TN is only three hours extra from me than Rochester is, and I have no problem with that (either one is a huge improvement over the one-way 24 hour drive MN was last year). Make no mistake, I'm completely and totally pulling for a Knoxville Nats this year, since I agree with everyone else that they deserve it the most, and as I mentioned, there's a small amount of extra travel time for me involved. Regardless of this "New York arrogance" you're talking about, the issue of showers is a big one. The fact of the matter is Rochester is an attractive location, and when it comes down to it, either location would have a large amount of people, and if one location can offer lodging without the need for hotels to shower and one can't, logistically, the location that can offer lodging without need for hotels should win. As you noted, however, logistics aren't the only issue, or MN would win every time; semantics are important as well.

Nats should be about keeping the game alive all across the country, not just in NY and MN. If Nats is never anywhere near entire regions of the country, then Redemption will systematically die in those regions.

Which of course, explains why Florida and California don't have any active playgroups.

Offline SomeKittens

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #155 on: February 12, 2012, 04:08:25 PM »
+2
Hi.  I'm Randall Koutnik.  I'm one of the frontrunners for hosting Nats.  I'm 21, 5" 10', and have eyes that are blue most of the time.  My dream since I started playing Redemption has been to host Nationals.  Sure, winning Nats would be nice, but I've always loved hosting and helping others enjoy themselves far more than winning.  I've made lots of friends through this game, and I hope to make many more.  As far as I know, I would be the youngest to host Nationals if I win this year's bid.  I would be co-hosting with two good friends and wise men (not to mention former hosts), John M and Reyzen.

This is not about arrogance, and it hurts me when it is framed this way.  TN is the rightful leader, and I hope they get it, as they deserve it more than I.  However, this is Rob's decision.  It is not mine, or anyone else who's been arguing for the past few pages.  Please end this pointless bickering, and let's enjoy a fun, Christ-centered National Tournament, wherever it is held.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2015, 09:02:57 PM by ReyZen »
Mind not the ignorant fool on the other side of the screen!-BubbleBoy
Code: [Select]
postcount.add(1);

Offline katedid

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • If I make you laugh, my day has been productive
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #156 on: February 12, 2012, 04:17:54 PM »
+1

This current debate seems to be more about NY arrogance than TN showers.


I am somewhat offended by this broad generalization. What exactly has given you the impression that we NY players are arrogant? Are you by any chance operating under the assumption that all New Yorker's are from  New York City, which in itself is another terrible stereotype?

Offline Red

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4789
  • It takes time to build the boat.
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #157 on: February 12, 2012, 04:22:08 PM »
0
I'm gonna say that I wasn't responding to chronic because otherwise I'd not respond kindly...
Ironman 2016 and 2018 Winner.
3rd T1-2P 2018, 3rd T2-2P 2019
I survived the Flood twice.

Offline lp670sv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #158 on: February 12, 2012, 04:23:52 PM »
0
I'm gonna say that I wasn't responding to chronic because otherwise I'd not respond kindly...

So not an inside joke. Got it.


Chronic, I've kind of been holding this in for awhile but check your PMs, We need to talk.

Offline goldencomet

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
    • LFG
    • South Central Region
    • My Writing Blog
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #159 on: February 12, 2012, 04:38:44 PM »
+1
I think I speak for the Texans when I say that we've never hosted Nats there. And most of us are too modest to say so, so I'll speak up for us and say that no, we are not arrogant, and yes, we do have showers (I have no idea what places you other people live in that don't have showers but I find that rather odd).

So come over and enjoy Nats at a place that, you'll be surprised to find, is not over populated with cowboys :D
achnicincursions.com

Offline SomeKittens

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #160 on: February 12, 2012, 04:44:05 PM »
+1
goldencomet, a place could be perfect to host nats, but if there's no will, there's no way.  Texas would need a host as well as a location.  As far as I know, no one in TX has placed a bid.  As much fun as Texas is (you guys have the second best barbeque ever), I don't think Nats will be there.
Mind not the ignorant fool on the other side of the screen!-BubbleBoy
Code: [Select]
postcount.add(1);

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #161 on: February 12, 2012, 04:56:57 PM »
+1
1) Chronic is from PA, not NY.

I was indeed wrong. I thought you, CA and SomeKittens were all part of the same playgroup.

2) I actually was going to comment on Chronic's repeatedly stating this, as it seems rude and uncalled for, but since Red wasn't responding I was assuming it's an inside joke. The replies do not represent the views of anyone but Chronic.

I'll let you handle that, then. I interpreted the same as you did.


3) I wasn't aware that I was being arrogant for defending the potential decision of Rob Anderson, who knows better than any of us how nats needs to be planned. I can only hope you aren't letting your personal opinion of me reflect on NY's supposed "arrogance".

This is where I will assume full responsibility for the misunderstanding, since SK and Kate had the same reponse. I meant that the idea NY was better because of showers, dorms, etc. seemed arrogant - kind of a "we have what they don't" approach. To me, that was an indictment of the less priviledged, which I termed as "arrogant." Perhaps "elitist" was more what I was thinking, but I'm sure that would have been met with the same rebuttal.

So, I apologize to New Yorkers in general, since I was referring only to the NY bid, not the people individually.

4) Me..Randall...occasionally Irish_Luck and Katedid. You're right we are totally the most prevelant we have 4 active members on a site with well over a thousand members.

There are not nearly a thousand active Board Members, and significantly less that post on a regular basis. My point was that activity on the boards should not be a deciding factor for Nats since there are many players who are not on the boards at all.

5) Distant between Rochester NY - Boston MA 302 402 miles. Distance from Rochester MN to Nashville TN 760 miles. We may be in the same region as boston, but we aren't exactly close. You're putting more weight on region then on actual distance.

Yes. I was talking specifically about regions. I had tried to italicize the word so as to clarify my position.

6) Rochester's bid is a college, complete with dorms, dining hall, a gym, soccer fields etc.

Back to my ill-worded post, I was viewing this as a "we got all this and TN doesn't" approach, which is what I was decrying. However, I should not have said "arrogant" and I should have been more specific the first time.

7) Gross exaggeration is hyperbolic.

I like being gross.
My wife is a hottie.

Chronic Apathy

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #162 on: February 12, 2012, 05:01:48 PM »
0
I think I speak for the Texans when I say that we've never hosted Nats there. And most of us are too modest to say so, so I'll speak up for us and say that no, we are not arrogant, and yes, we do have showers (I have no idea what places you other people live in that don't have showers but I find that rather odd).

So come over and enjoy Nats at a place that, you'll be surprised to find, is not over populated with cowboys :D

If I recall correctly, Rob did mention Texas in his list of Nats frontrunners, so don't give up hope yet. There's always a chance that if TN or NY works out this year, that you guys in TX can put together a strong proposal next year. :)

Regarding my comment to Red, I apologize, I didn't intend it to come off as it apparently did, and since this seems to be a recurring theme for me, I'll be much more conscientious of what I type in the future. That said, I still disagree with the notion that the discussion of the importance of showers is "absurd." I have absolutely no interest in spending four days with a bunch of people, half of whom haven't showered throughout that time. Having to pay for a hotel may be the difference in me going or not going depending on the prices of decent places in the area. Disregarding the importance of the issue is unwise, in my opinion.

Quote
I was indeed wrong. I thought you, CA and SomeKittens were all part of the same playgroup.

Nope. Randall and I have been known to pal around, but I live six hours away from the Rochester playgroup.

Offline lp670sv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #163 on: February 12, 2012, 05:05:03 PM »
0
I'm not necassarily trying to say that we are better than TN because we have all of this stuff, just that when it comes down to it if showers are a problem it's one that others don't have making them just as attractive as a location. When doing even planning the minute details are often backbreakers. In the cases of the years nats didnt even have lodging this actual eliminates the need to worry about showers since everyone coming would be getting lodging elsewhere and the hosts didn't need to worry about the conditions of that lodging. When you provide lodging it opens up a whole new aspect of things that you have to provide, such as sanitary conditions.

I'm also not really a member of Randall's playgroup anymore as I don't really play the game. Though when speaking of the Rochester play group I am geographically included since I would be volunteering to help out if Nats is indeed here.

Offline SomeKittens

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #164 on: February 12, 2012, 05:07:07 PM »
0
Let's remember several things:
-We're not Rob.  None of the discussion here will be taken into consideration for the bid.
-Most of you haven't read the bids, so let's not criticize them.
-Apologies are good, but let's keep it cool.  I will lock this if it gets worse.

One thing I'd like to point out:
3) I wasn't aware that I was being arrogant for defending the potential decision of Rob Anderson, who knows better than any of us how nats needs to be planned. I can only hope you aren't letting your personal opinion of me reflect on NY's supposed "arrogance".

This is where I will assume full responsibility for the misunderstanding, since SK and Kate had the same reponse. I meant that the idea NY was better because of showers, dorms, etc. seemed arrogant - kind of a "we have what they don't" approach. To me, that was an indictment of the less priviledged, which I termed as "arrogant." Perhaps "elitist" was more what I was thinking, but I'm sure that would have been met with the same rebuttal.

So, I apologize to New Yorkers in general, since I was referring only to the NY bid, not the people individually.

As the author of the NY bid, it never once mentioned TN or any other location.  It simply listed the reasons why Rob should choose NY as the location for Nats 2012.  I'm sure every other Nats bid does the same.  Please keep this in mind in your future posts.
Mind not the ignorant fool on the other side of the screen!-BubbleBoy
Code: [Select]
postcount.add(1);

Chronic Apathy

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #165 on: February 12, 2012, 05:10:02 PM »
0
-We're not Rob.  None of the discussion here will be taken into consideration for the bid.

Do you actually know this for a fact? I know that Rob actually listens to a lot of the member input when looking at Nats bids, even indirectly. I'm sure a bunch of people yelling that they'll boycott Nats if it's not at TN due to the shower issue won't go unheeded.

Offline lp670sv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #166 on: February 12, 2012, 05:16:09 PM »
+2
If Rob is considering saying no to TN because of this I don't think what we say will change him mind. There is an angle of this that no one has yet considered, Having several hundred people crammed in to a single location without means of sanitation for days can easily be considered a health hazard and get Nats shut down.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 05:25:45 PM by lp670sv »

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #167 on: February 12, 2012, 05:32:12 PM »
0
As the author of the NY bid, it never once mentioned TN or any other location.  It simply listed the reasons why Rob should choose NY as the location for Nats 2012.  I'm sure every other Nats bid does the same.  Please keep this in mind in your future posts.

Again, even "NY bid" is not entirely what I meant, but rather "the arguments for why NY was better than TN is the posts preceeding my post." I have nothing against NY having a bid. In fact, I would fully support NY for Nats 2013, especially in dorms.

My beef is with the lack of regional representation. Even if MN had tried to downplay TN's bid in favor of their superior facilities, I would have spoken out, much like I did years back with the CA bid. I think that every region deserves a Nats, even if it means in less than superior venues.
My wife is a hottie.

Chronic Apathy

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #168 on: February 12, 2012, 05:32:48 PM »
0
If Rob is considering saying no to TN because of this I don't think what we say will change him mind.

Call me naive, but I think it will.

Quote
There is an angle of this that no one has yet considered, Having several hundred people crammed in to a single location without means of sanitation for days can easily be considered a health hazard and get Nats shut down.

Not a chance. Enough people would want showers and stay in hotels, and even if not, four days with 200 people is nothing.

Offline lp670sv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #169 on: February 12, 2012, 05:35:14 PM »
-1
If Rob is considering saying no to TN because of this I don't think what we say will change him mind.

Call me naive, but I think it will.

Quote
There is an angle of this that no one has yet considered, Having several hundred people crammed in to a single location without means of sanitation for days can easily be considered a health hazard and get Nats shut down.

Not a chance. Enough people would want showers and stay in hotels, and even if not, four days with 200 people is nothing.

You really don't think a health organization would see 200 people sleeping in the same location with no showers for 3-4 days as a health issue? Even to me it sounds like a breeding ground for disease.

Offline SomeKittens

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #170 on: February 12, 2012, 05:54:19 PM »
0
-We're not Rob.  None of the discussion here will be taken into consideration for the bid.

Do you actually know this for a fact? I know that Rob actually listens to a lot of the member input when looking at Nats bids, even indirectly. I'm sure a bunch of people yelling that they'll boycott Nats if it's not at TN due to the shower issue won't go unheeded.
Heh.  Just goes to show I'm not Rob.
Mind not the ignorant fool on the other side of the screen!-BubbleBoy
Code: [Select]
postcount.add(1);

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #171 on: February 12, 2012, 06:05:23 PM »
0
1) Chronic is from PA, not NY.

4) Me..Randall...occasionally Irish_Luck and Katedid. You're right we are totally the most prevelant we have 4 active members on a site with well over a thousand members.
be in the same region as boston, but we aren't exactly close. You're putting more weight on region then on actual distance.
1. I made this mistake as well. I tend to lump most people from the NE together, just like most people lump all minnesotans together, even though we aren't in the same playgroup.

4. Despite what it seems, looking at the past 3 pages, you five (including Chronic) have the majority by far. You, Skittens, and CA are the most active group from a concentrated area. Less you in terms of Redemption though. I would say the NE is definitely the most vocal on the boards. NC has more members, but we (well, everybody besides me) tend to comment on concrete things, not the debatable ones.

I will boycott nationals if it's not in TN because of that. Let's look at past nationals.

No you won't, but nice try.
Actually, I will. I realize this won't (or shouldn't) change Rob's mind, but if that's the way he's going to choose, that's the way I'm going to choose. This also plays with the fact that I won't have much money in the upcoming years, but depending on locations, I would definitely make an effort every year (except CA) otherwise.

Also, I'm not sure why people are throwing around the number 200. We'll be lucky if there's 125 people at nats this year.

Offline lp670sv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #172 on: February 12, 2012, 06:08:12 PM »
+3
I was saying you won't because you still have to try and make me wear a Tebow jersey.

Chronic Apathy

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #173 on: February 12, 2012, 06:25:18 PM »
+1
You really don't think a health organization would see 200 people sleeping in the same location with no showers for 3-4 days as a health issue? Even to me it sounds like a breeding ground for disease.

No I don't. Again, you have to assume that at least 1/4 of the people at Nats either live in the area or are getting hotels, which means that, if we assume 200 people (Ring Wraith, I use 200 as an absolute maximum, if the stars aligned perfectly), 50 people are going to be showered. 150 people in a four day period isn't going to cause any kind of a health hazard, because the facilities themselves will be clean. Even if they did see it as an issue, by the time they could actually organize any kind of investigation, Nats would already be wrapping up.

Offline lp670sv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Nats location?
« Reply #174 on: February 12, 2012, 06:48:43 PM »
0
Health department doesn't do an investigation then shut you down, they shut you down then investigate. And even if they did wait until after Nats to do the investigation the tournament hosts and cactus could still get fined after the fact.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal