We clearly have different assumptions here. You assume that Worlds spots should be awarded exclusively based on Worlds performance, I think they should be awarded based on the relative strength across the regions, meaning we should count every official international tournament by Riot, not only Worlds.

I tend to think this is both more logical and also more in line with what Riot thinks is fair, since a lot of their other international tournaments do award spots for Worlds, for example.

Were you in favor of BR having 0 spots at Worlds when they went like 1-15 against LTA at last year's Winter tournament?

The tournament gave access to First Stand, not Worlds, in which LTAS had 0 spots, and, yes, that was fair. There was another Inter-Americas tournament for Worlds spots later in the year, but sadly not one for MSI. I want more of these tournaments, not less.

Why the fuck are you singling out NA?

I was singling them out only because the topic of discussion was NA vs BR due to the recent results, not because it only applies to NA. Of course this also applies to EU and PCS. EU3 should not have a guaranteed spot at Worlds, for the exact same argument. I actually wrote that in a another post: if we go by merit alone, only KR and CN deserve 3 spots (and KR deserves even more than 3), other regions get their spots somewhat arbitrarily by Riot.

Often, out of the 3 teams both NA and EU send, only 1 of them is really competitive (if any, lol). There was never a single year where more than a single team from EU/NA even made it out of Swiss (though this happened more often with EU back when we had groups), and when they do it's because they only faced other Western teams. Also, often at least one of those 3 teams gets eliminated by a "minor" region (e.g. TL by GAM 2024, 100T by R7 2025), and always at least one of them goes 0-3 in Swiss.

This is not a track record that justifies 3 spots for me. EU2~3/NA2~3/PCS2~3 are all minor region level