An Update on the IFPA and the OBX Fall Flippers Event

Kineticist·article·analyzed·Dec 4, 2025

Analysis

claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 (batch) · $0.008

TL;DR

IFPA explains why it didn't revoke OBX Fall Flippers sanctioning despite hate incident.

Summary

An in-depth analysis of the IFPA's handling of the OBX Fall Flippers event incident involving discriminatory conduct by a staff member (Becky Connell). The article examines the decision not to retroactively revoke event sanctioning, explaining the IFPA's reasoning around maintaining organizational credibility and acknowledging internal communication failures. The piece explores the tension between accountability and the practical consequences of reversing assurances given during the event.

Key Claims

Josh Sharpe has authority to pull event sanctioning immediately and retroactively for any reason, including after the fact.
high confidence · Josh Sharpe quoted in screenshot: 'We can pull sanctioning of events for whatever we want, whenever we want, even after the fact.'
The on-site IFPA Director communicated 'We got it sorted' at 3 pm Friday, which was interpreted ambiguously by different parties.
high confidence · Article directly states IFPA Director relayed message at 3 pm; Becky's shift ended at same time.
Josh Sharpe retrospectively acknowledges he should have immediately pulled sanctioning when the issue was first brought to attention.
high confidence · Josh Sharpe statement: 'In hindsight the correct decision was for me to simply pull sanctioning from the event IMMEDIATELY when the issue was brought to our attention.'
The IFPA had previously revoked sanctioning or adjusted WPPR eligibility after tournaments concluded when warranted.
high confidence · Adam Becker quoted: 'Yes, but what has never happened before is an IFPA staff member assures other IFPA staff members that an incident is resolved...'
The IFPA's decision not to revoke sanctioning conflicts with its own policies around WPPR eligibility and Gender Inclusion.
high confidence · Adam Becker: 'In all honesty it doesn't [align with policies], but as I've said above this isn't about who could or couldn't play...'
The Women's Advisory Board recommendations were dismissed in favor of an alternate path after three days of internal deliberation.
high confidence · Article states: 'this may be why, after three days of internal deliberation, the recommendations of the Women's Advisory Board were dismissed'
Adam Becker stated the Women's Advisory Board recommendations 'removed all responsibility from the IFPA and our role in this incident occurring.'
high confidence · Adam Becker quote provided directly in article.
The IFPA's core concern was maintaining organizational credibility by following through on assurances given to event organizers.

Notable Quotes

“We can pull sanctioning of events for whatever we want, whenever we want, even after the fact.”
Josh Sharpe @ not specified — Establishes IFPA's absolute authority over event sanctioning and sets context for why decision not to revoke was consequential.
“In hindsight the correct decision was for me to simply pull sanctioning from the event IMMEDIATELY when the issue was brought to our attention in the Slack channel.”
Josh Sharpe @ not specified — Direct acknowledgment of error in judgment; key admission that immediate action would have been correct.
“Once it was made clear that the issue had been resolved, everyone stood down. No further messages were received or sent until Monday and things were made abundantly clear that not only was it not resolved, but had escalated well beyond.”
Adam Becker @ not specified — Explains the communication breakdown and how Friday's resolution claim prevented informed decision-making.
“That remains the crux of this issue...we told the organizers everything was fine, our staff did that, our staff participated in the entire weekend of the event. Removing sanction doesn't fix anything, it removes any credibility we would ever have.”
Adam Becker @ not specified — Core justification for not revoking sanctioning; prioritizes organizational credibility over retroactive accountability.
“In all honesty it doesn't [align with policies], but as I've said above this isn't about who could or couldn't play, this is about what we as an organization told the organizers of this event that they were ok to move forward.”
Adam Becker @ not specified — Candid acknowledgment that the decision conflicts with stated IFPA policies but was made for organizational reasons.
“The recommendations from the women's board removed all responsibility from the IFPA and our role in this incident occurring.”
Adam Becker @ not specified — Reveals why Women's Advisory Board recommendations were rejected; IFPA leadership prioritized accepting responsibility.

Entities

Josh SharpepersonAdam BeckerpersonBecky ConnellpersonColinperson IFPAorganizationOBX Fall FlipperseventWomen's Advisory BoardorganizationKineticist

Signals

?
community_signal: Major controversy over discriminatory conduct at IFPA-sanctioned event and organization's decision not to retroactively revoke sanctioning, creating significant community backlash.
high · Article extensively documents IFPA's controversial decision and internal deliberations; describes decision as 'unpopular with many IFPA players.'
?
industry_signal: Reveals tensions within IFPA between accountability for hate incidents and maintaining organizational credibility/decision-making authority.
high · Adam Becker's statements about prioritizing follow-through on assurances over policy alignment; rejection of Women's Advisory Board recommendations.
?
community_signal: Demonstrates conflict between IFPA's stated mission around gender identity inclusion and actual response to discriminatory conduct affecting trans community.
high · Article juxtaposes IFPA mission statement with handling of hate incident; Adam Becker admits decision doesn't align with stated policies.
?
operational_signal: Significant communication failure during event: Friday's 'We got it sorted' message was ambiguously interpreted, preventing informed decision-making until Monday.
high · Article details how different parties interpreted the 3 pm message differently; Monday revelations showed situation had escalated.
?
business_signal: IFPA decision creates precedent conflict: maintains sanctioning despite acknowledging violation of its own Gender Inclusion and WPPR policies.
high · Adam Becker explicitly states the decision 'doesn't align' with stated policies but was made for organizational credibility reasons.

Topics

IFPA governance and decision-making authorityprimaryOBX Fall Flippers hate incident and discriminatory conductprimaryEvent sanctioning and retroactive policy enforcementprimaryInternal IFPA communication failuresprimaryTrans community safety and inclusion in pinballprimaryOrganizational credibility vs. accountabilitysecondaryWPPR eligibility and Gender Inclusion policiessecondary

Sentiment

neutral(0)

Transcript

web_scrape · $0.000

Like what you're reading? Get pinball news, analysis, and deep dives delivered to your inbox. Get pinball news, analysis, and deep dives delivered to your inbox. When the IFPA team was made aware of the incident on Friday morning, an attending IFPA Director was empowered by Josh Sharpe to do whatever was necessary to resolve the issue, up to and including pulling event sanctioning. As Josh states in the screenshot, “We can pull sanctioning of events for whatever we want, whenever we want, even after the fact. If there’s an issue with TD’s following our rules for sanctioning, then our communication should be with the TD on those issues. That TD then has to deal with the venue as to whatever hurdles exist to make sure our rules are followed.” This is where I believe communication within the IFPA falters. At about 3 pm the on-site IFPA Director relays a message that “We got it sorted.” What was perhaps less clear to some was what exactly that meant for the situation. To some, it meant that the threat of immediate danger had been removed (Becky’s shift ended at 3 pm). To others, it meant the situation was totally resolved and the IFPA could continue supporting an officially sanctioned tournament. As IFPA Director Adam Becker communicated to me in an email, responding to questions I had sent, “Once it was made clear that the issue had been resolved, everyone stood down. No further messages were received or sent until Monday and things were made abundantly clear that not only was it not resolved, but had escalated well beyond, had that information been made available on Friday, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, sanction would be removed.” To their credit, the IFPA and Josh Sharpe own that this was an incorrect move. As he notes in his statement, “In hindsight the correct decision was for me to simply pull sanctioning from the event IMMEDIATELY when the issue was brought to our attention in the Slack channel. While giving my full authority to the IFPA Director on site to do whatever was necessary, I take full responsibility for putting that IFPA Director in that situation, even with the full arsenal of IFPA power behind her in those moments.” Why wasn’t the sanctioning pulled from the event after the fact? I asked Adam if the IFPA had ever revoked the sanctioning of a tournament or adjusted points eligibility after a tournament had concluded, and pertinent information that would warrant these changes was shared with the team. He stated, “Yes, but what has never happened before is an IFPA staff member assures other IFPA staff members that an incident is resolved, the TD is made aware that they are free to continue with their event with no concerns and then we revoke sanction. That remains the crux of this issue, I wish this incident didn't involve hate towards the trans community, I wish we had done a better job, I hate the harm this has caused to them, but removing sanction doesn't fix that, we told the organizers everything was fine, our staff did that, our staff participated in the entire weekend of the event. Removing sanction doesn't fix anything, it removes any credibility we would ever have, no one could ever ask us for help and not expect a different result than what we said.” While an unpopular decision with many IFPA players, I think this is the way that the IFPA has determined as the best way to own their mistake while maintaining perceived decision-making credibility. Essentially, if the IFPA says they are going to do something, and then do that thing, that’s how it’s going to be, and I think the hope is that the decisions that are made in the first place are the correct ones. They aren’t always. Adam reinforced this line of thinking when I asked him how this decision aligns with the IFPA’s own policies around WPPR eligibility and Gender Inclusion. “In all honesty it doesn't, but as I've said above this isn't about who could or couldn't play, this is about what we as an organization told the organizers of this event that they were ok to move forward, that no action would be taken and everything has been resolved. I can't stress enough how much I hate that this is the position we are in.” Framed in this context, rightly or wrongly, this may be why, after three days of internal deliberation, the recommendations of the Women’s Advisory Board were dismissed and an alternate path was chosen instead. As he told me, “The recommendations from the women's board removed all responsibility from the IFPA and our role in this incident occurring.” As I sit on the umpteenth draft of this update this evening, I think ultimately where I’m landing is that there is no perfect solution for the IFPA, its players, or those affected by the hate-fueled, discriminatory actions of Becky Connell. Everyone, in different ways, was put into impossible situations and made decisions to the best of their abilities with the information and resources available at the time. Some of those decisions were wrong. Hopefully, this can be a learning experience and a catalyst for positive change within the community, one that more closely aligns with the IFPA’s stated mission–”fostering a pinball community where EVERYONE, regardless of gender identity, expression, or background, feels welcome, safe, and valued.” Colin is the chief pixel pusher at Kineticist. He's a lifetime gamer who became enamored with pinball after taking in a family copy of the 1979 classic Joker Poker (the EM version). Since then he's bought, sold and repaired many machines, competed in all kinds of tournaments, and contributes to This Week in Pinball, the New Robert Englunds Pinball League, and Pin-Masters of New Robert Englunds. Previously, Colin spent over a decade working in marketing for agencies and tech startups. He also started and ran a music blog, happy hour website, and wrote a regular craft beer review column for Central Track in Dallas. Once aspired to be an artsy film director.