Oops. FireBender. Sorry.

Certainly anyone should feel free to invite anyone that they feel would make a "worthy contribution to the league".

However in my opinion anyone that participates and submits games on a regular basis is making a "worthy contribution to the league". Also who is to say who will make such a contribution, so I would say that anyone that's interested should be invited.

I know you didn't mean it to be taken this way but I want to make sure everyone understands that we want people of all experience levels. You don't have to be a great player or even a good player. You do have to want to play and be willing to commit to submitting a game most months or if for some reason you can't, be willing to make sure folks know that you can't as soon as possible. That's pretty much the only requirement. The desire to improve your game is a plus as well but that's really icing on the cake.

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

Oh my God, another category, I'll read up as soon as I manage!

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.

WOW! This has taken a life of it's own.

I think we may be having too many cooks....

If i understand the role of the commissioner correctly, and since i have been prompted to strap on a pair previously i am no longer entertaining ideas about changes and rules.

Feel free to discuss them amongst your selves of course but i will try and make the best determination based on the most popular idea's.

TP. There was never any prominent call for an extension of games. Any game posted on the 14th or after will be discluded from the round, as per the rules.

We will have a short break whilst i set up a new team and restructure the rules, they will resemble my last proposal as it seems that was widely accepted, of course, if it is not liked we can change.

*ALL RULES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BETWEEN ROUNDS IF REQUIRED AND SUPPORTED.*

I will randomally select 3 players from 5 player teams to join Brezelius in a new team (Team E).

For now take a break, i am swamped atm and will get back to you guys in the next day or so.



Not sure who has and has not submitted, but CornhuskerMac pm'd me some time ago and informed me of his inability to compete this round for personal reasons.

Personally i like any rule that keeps you guys happy. i would like to see a penalty for non-submital, but it seems the general consensus is to drop the penalty. Like mumble has said, if we do see a trend toward non-submitals then we can bring back the -2 points.

The Commish

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.

Democracy at its best. Neilo, you were voted, you do what you think is best and I will stand by it. Just don't raise taxes.

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.

Nope. Don't like this at all. This is the first I heard of a blanket bonus for every game between 2 and 5 years. Where the heck was this discussed? All the discussion I've seen related to game speed centered around only the first three fastest games and the only discrepancy was in how ties would be handled. This is certainly the first I've seen of this proposal and I have to say I don't like it in the least.

My biggest objection is that it takes no account of the size of game or victory conditions that are being played. In some cases many folks could achieve a 2 year game in others perhaps only one may achieve a 4 year game. This proposal is unrealistic and comes from out of the blue without ever being discussed anywhere that I've seen.

The last I noticed the only thing that had been discussed was that the fastest three games deserved 1 point of bonus. The only disagreement I ever saw was in how ties would be handled. This round ties were broken via MV submission date. The only disagreement that I saw at any time was over my proposal to leave ties unbroken in both speed and score criteria. At that point the only objection that I heard was the concern that there could be too many ties. Now you make a proposal that gives a bonus to any game 5 years or less. We may as well hand out these bonus points like lollipops to kids at the doctors office.

---

We clearly have vested a certain amount of authority in the person of the commissioner and I think it's appropriate to do so. The purpose of the commissioner is to be able to cut through the inevitable amount of red tape and make a decision where the group of individuals would take forever to do so. Also the Commissioner should be free to make suggestions just as any individual is free to do so.

However I would suggest that for the commissioner to put forth a proposal that includes a never before discussed solution to a problem that's been thoroughly discussed is not an appropriate action for said commissioner to take. Particularly when the never before discussed solution bears no resemblence to any proposal thats previously been discussed.

I would like to counter the above quoted proposal with one of my own.

I dont like this. Cumalative team years not average.

I need a rulebook PM'd to me to compile results. Also, I will send neilo a PM on a problem.

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?

It has to be average, That is what makes sense.

Fine. Whatever.   

I like Mumble's post. Whatever the choice though, lets get the new teams and the requirements for round 3 out there! I'm eager to start playing

Vilgan

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.

I suspect that this problem relates to the problem that I mentioned on how one deals with non-submittal's in the base score.

However whatever the problem is, if it's related to scoring then it's related to the discussion that we are currently having and I think that you should share whatever your problem calculating the score is with the rest of us so that it can be considered in the current discussion.

In any case I'm going to spend a moment and go through the scores for this round as well and see what I come up with. I'll post what I think are the results in the round 2 thread. We can discuss any further issues that this turns up here.

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.

As you say, whatever. I'm not sure that secrecy is really the best policy. The more you hide it, the more nefarious it seems, although I'm sure it's benign.

I did however compile the raw data as a crosscheck to what you've done and posted it in the MVL Round 2 thread. Whatever.

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.

I suggest:
Advanced notice = at least 5 days before the deadline

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?

I'm not going to present an opinion on Macmatt's resignation getting points or not, but I *will* argue against excused non-submittals being awarded points.

The killing argument is simple: It counteracts the league's goal of improving one's game, and also encourages poor sportsmanship.
Suppose I absolutely fail to get a win (of the right type) on whatever settings a round has. Then suppose we accept the proposition that announcing it 5 days in advance makes a non-submittal excused and therefore valid for scoring. If I know I have major problems with getting the right type of win, then saying I will not be able to submit, say, 7-10 days before the deadline and collecting 2 free points for my team is almost certainly better than submitting a win of the wrong type (1 point) or a defeat/resignation (no points).

Non-submittals, even excused with a good forward notice, can absolutely not be rewarded.

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.

Sounds logical. Now - gimme the rules - I want to get started before the sun sets!