Ahh, I thought that with 5.. the worst/last person was ignored completely, so a non submittal would also be ignored. If that's not the case, then it is indeed the 4 person teams who have the advantage.

Vilgan

On new threads I am starting to let people know about the league. And to come out and see if they might be interested. Dogs rule and Cats are food.

This is indeed they best way to proceed, however I do want to make sure that you are aware that over 20% of all players (5 of 19) did not submit a game this month.

As far as the -2 points I think I've changed my mind and jumped on the other side of the bandwagon. I do think non-submittal is the worst thing you can do, but I am now more concerned that folks may miss a game for whatever reason and then because of the onus we place on non-submittal be inclined to stop playing in the league and that is even worse to me than an occasional non-submittal. I've come to agree with those that made the argument that someone that misses posting a game feels bad enough as it is and it's not necessary to add to the pain by further penalizing the team particularly when with going to team average bonuses the team will automatically be penalized for a non-submittal.

I do think that a non-submittal rate of greater than 20% is a very significant issue that needs to be addressed immediately. But I think our focus should be more on how to make sure we can get back a player that just happened to miss posting a game rather than on focusing on how to penalize such a player.

I would also suggest that it might be a better idea to for the moment keep 4 teams of 5 instead of splitting off into 5 teams of 4. I think the slightly larger team size can tolerate the non-submittal better than a team of 4 can.

Still all in all I absolutely agree that the best way to get a decision that's both reasonable and quick is with the commissioner setup like we have. If we were to wait to discuss all of this and somehow vote or otherwise come to a concensus it would take quite some time. Because we've entrusted the decision making capability to a single individual we can certainly get quicker decisions. I'm also sure that you realize the responsibility that this puts all on your shoulders and you will act in the best interests of all.

When did I say that? I said the results are coming out soon. And since Round 3 is starting on 16th, we should really mop up the discussion. We agreed to have atleast 2 days for discussion, correct?

Try to just mention what you are with or against.




Really good players can finsih a game in 1 year(purge, magnumaniac, wyndstar, etc). What about that? Of course there is no need for it to be edited until they actually join the league of if they join.


Again, not average team game time but cumalative team game time.


Also, could you PM me the round 2 rulebook or should I compile the results using the one in the "The Metaverse League" thread.

Alright, I'll begin making the roster now. Once neilo clarifies which rules are to be used then I'll assign BP and MVL pounts.



I agree with this. So do I have permission to begin attracting more players using PMs?


-Fire
Vice Commish.

I dont like this. Cumalative team years not average.

Cumulative team years makes no sense, a team of 4 will have a big advantage over a team of 5.

As an example a team of 4 submits four 4 year games for a total of 16 years and an average of 4 years. A team of 5 submits four 3 year games and one 4 year game for the same total of 16 years and an average of 3.2 years. Your cumulative total says these two teams are equal where the average points out the obvious that the 5 man team was faster.

What specifically is your issue with average speed?

Fine. Whatever.   

I'd still like to understand what your objection was.

However, back to the real topic at hand. The above listed set of rules define how bonus points are earned in all possible situations, however they do not address a teams base score and how a non-submittal applies to that score.

By base score I'm refering to the 2 points of a win of the proper type and 1 point for a win of the incorrect type. As it currently stands that is calculated on four submissions and if the team has 5 people then one score is not counted. No one has mentioned that this should be calculated in any kind of average way and so it only been treated as a cumulative total.

This does bring up a question of how a non-submittal gets treated when the base score gets calculated. In a 5 man team we could simply drop the non-submittal as the one score not counted, however that's not really fair to the 4 man team. If someone in a four man team doesn't submit a game then they only have 3 submissions to count. By extension then it's only fair that if someone in a 5 man team doesn't submit then they get only 3 scores to count as well.

However, that still leaves open the question of what to do when the submission is somehow "excused" by the player giving notice. In this case if it's a 5 man team then its simple enough to use the non-submittal as the score not counted, but even if the absence is "excused" that still leaves a 4 man team one score short.

So what can we do here. One thing would be to assume that the "excused" player would have otherwise submitted a win of the proper type and give them two points. If it's a 5 man team that may or may not be the score that's dropped, in the case of a 4 man team that score would always need to be counted. I think this is the easiest solution.

Another point I want to make is that I have as much desire as the next guy for the simplest and easiest set of rules possible. However, there are always complicating issues and these are never solved by what seems to be a strong desire on the part of many people here to bury their heads in the sand the moment something starts to get complicated or confusing. Also it is not very helpful when involved in a long complicated thread where some people are trying to resolve real problems for others to intersperse taunts, jokes or other superfluous conversation. This only complicates the discussion for the rest of us and causes some folks to throw up their hands in defeat and basically admit that they haven't been able to follow the entire discussion as our commissioner did in reply #58 of this thread when he made this "out of the blue" proposal about how individual bonus for game speed should be handled. Regardless of how painful it is to do so, it behooves all involved to read this stuff thoroughly and make sure they understand what the other guy is proposing.

No need for that. I've compiled the results and sent them to neilo. As soon as he sends a reply then I'll post them ith results and league ladder thread.

The problem relates to a bit of confusion in scoring one player. Although, I'll leave that decision to neilo. I dont think its something which should be discussed. I Needed a decision and I thought neilo was the man for the job.

That suits me fine Mumble. I just want to move on. I admit i was being quite forcefull with my power, but at times i think that is what is required. If we are happy with this proposal then we can move on. If you object please speak now. Personally, and i have said it before, as long as the rule makes everyone happy, it makes me happy.

There is a fine line between being too forceful and being not forceful enough. It's a hard line to walk. I also agree with trying to move on. But hopefully you got my point about the difference between making a suggestion that's open for discussion as a member of the league and making a pronouncement of how things should work as commissioner of the league. There can sometimes be only a very subtle difference between these two but it's a very important difference.

Moving on from here is something that we all can agree on.


Good point, you do need to have some kind of definition of what is meant by advanced notice.

---

However, before totally moving on, the scoring for this round did bring up the situation I pointed out in my post #91 of this thread.

And that is that Macmatt gave notice and cause for his inability to submit a game and in fact actually resigned from the league. If Macmatt had been on a 5 man team then his team would have received 4 game completion scores for 2 points each. However since Macmatt was on a 4 man team, Team D lost out on Macmatt's presumed 2 points. Team D otherwise had all their games complete and a total of 3 points in bonus so they should have had a score of 11. In effect Team D was penalized 2 points for Macmatt's excused non-submittal.

The easiest way to deal with this is to say that any excused non-submittal is the same as submitting a game with a win of the proper type. That way for a 4 man team you still get your 8 base score points and for a 5 man team one is dropped anyway.

Can we agree that is how we will deal with this in the future?

Also, for round 3 we really do need *all* rules that apply to that round repeated in the OP of the Round thread. Otherwise poor FireBender has to go searching through about 4 very long threads to figure out what really are the rules in play for this round. I know this can be tedious and a pain but once things settle down then I think everything will work more smoothly. It's convenient that you can always edit the OP in a thread so let's just make sure when round 3 does come out that we dedicate the first few replies to making sure everything get specified in that OP. OK?

Yes this is a delicate problem and I certainly understand your point. If this is taken as a way out of a loss/resignation then it could definitely be taken advantage of. On the other hand you must admit that this situation is now very unfair to a four man team versus a 5 man team. Another way to deal with it is to make the 5 man team drop one score *plus* any non-submittal whether excused or not. At least this is fair to teams of different sizes although it still effectively penalizes the team.

I think perhaps the best way to deal with this is to require *way* more advanced notice than 5 days before the end of a match. I would suggest that advanced notice be before the round starts or perhaps the same day it starts. In this case the two excused absences that we had this round would not have been excused because they happened long after the round began. This certainly eliminates the concern that someone will choose to change a loss/incorrect win into an excused absence.

In any case we do need to resolve this before starting the next round. The only two fair ways that I see at the moment are the two I've outlined. The first makes both 4 and 5 man teams treat an excused absence the same which effectively penalizes the team even though there is no explicit -2 point penalty. The other option restricts "excused absence" to before the round to prevent potential abuse. I'm certainly open to other suggestions, however between the two I think advanced notice should occur before (or the day of) a round starts.