pecelot wrote:A big difference I see here is that with the suggested format you would exclude some of the best players from countries like France, Germany, United Kingdom or United States, whereas in the Olympics you always have the very best represented, no matter where they come from — it's more about the 10th best from one country that can be better than the best from another country not being able to qualify, but it's not such a big deal. It would matter a lot in such a small community of ours. The way you could work on that is perhaps taking into account previous tournament achievements from each state and then distribute qualification places accordingly — just like in the football Champions League, where spots are provided based on the countries' past results. From Poland only masters can get into the 2nd round of elimination, whereas from England 3 teams qualify directly to group stages — to illustrate.
they wouldnt be excluded though, they compete earlier and decide earlier amongst each other who is the best. and what you say is true for some sports, other sports are allowed to send only one representative. in any case, ive already said that a CL system would also be a possibility, so we can keep going in circles here, but its not really that relevant.
umeu wrote:[...] yet more people have said they like the idea than not, and many of them are not from brazil or china.
I would say it has received a rather mixed reception, and would look at arguments rather than popular vote. Some people may just support it because they want any ESOC event being organised.[/quote]
eh? 2/3rd more is not rather mixed, in a general election that would be considered a landslide victory. although im aware many people have not voted. that said, my statement remains correct, since you simply cannot deny that more people have said they like the idea than people who have said they disliked it, in the poll. i'm not saying you should organise it because more people voted in favor, it was simply an argument to refute gibsons comment.