I'd be interested to know some actual historical facts and statistics about how and how often the prizes in lieu rule has been used in the SN. It would be appropriate for the rule change proponents to provide that here or perhaps on a separate thread. Does it happen enough to even be important? I'm not that tournament active but I've seen very little use of the rule and none I noticed to be abusive.
I will offer one good argument for eliminating the prizes in lieu rule - we don't have the capacity to track it on this site.
So the question here is an INT player plays up in the ADV division and cashes but doesn't want to continue playing ADV so wants to decline the prizes to retain his/her INT status? Should they be allowed to do so? Based off of the idea that an AM player can decline cash playing as a pro in Lieu of prizes.
IMO the INT player would have no reason to decline the prizes other than if the INT devision was not offered at that particular event. Otherwise why would he/she play the divison and not be ready to except the prizes if they finish in a paid position. Now if you did have the situation where there was no INT division offered, that would be something open for discussion.
I say if you cash in advance you should NOT be allowed to decline prizes just to stay in Int. Why open up a loop hole for more bagging in the Am divisions? They cash play 4 more events if they don't cash then they can move back down in accordance with the rules in place now. A disc in advance is the same disc in int. We are nitpicking this too much.
Keith "Sunshine" B
Seems like we now have two (2) issues being debated here. One is the prizes in lieu rule that Zinger is opposed to. The other is the prize "acceptance" rule that Keith is opposed to.
I think the justification for the latter rule has been "water testing" and especially when it's a small division one is testing the water in.
I imagine Intermediate status is statistically preserved less often by non-acceptance than Advanced status, but that is just a wild guess. What about preserving Recreational status by non-acceptance? Currently we allow all 3 unlimited. Do we draw a line between those 3 categories, wipe out all status preservation non-acceptances or split the baby with limitations?
Is either rule really worth arguing over when we have other fish to fry?