I'd say the team definitely should have the required minimum amount of submissions in order to even be eligible for bonus points.

Also, non-submissions could count as 'on deadline' games in regards to submission time (they effectively submitted a non-submission at the last possible moment), zero points (non-submission) if a team has less than the required three games.
That would allow some of the calculations (team score, team submission time) be done even for those teams without granting any advantages.

Ok well...we have a few things here then.

My "decision" (and I use that lightly) on Jeff's game is on Pg 8 as is my "What it means to be Commish"

As for the submissions; if we have one more person move for the motion; I think that looking into what makes a team eligible for the team bonus points; and also do non-submitted games count as "ghost" games tacked on at the end; means we get to have a MVL vote here soon. Please note that these are two separate issues.

LOL, how ever are you guys gonna be able to replace me

Official Round 9 results:

Team A - 12
Team B - 11
Team C - 11
Team D - 13
Team E - 11

Congratulations to Team D!   

As for this discussion about non-submittals, a bit of League history may be instructive. There was no protestation by any other teams back in Round 5, when Team E received the first place submission bonus, despite non-submittals by two team members (Itzok & Velkyn Kyil). I believe that the members of Team E should show the same good-sportsmanship exhibited by the other teams in this regard.

I'm sure there are other examples of similar situations from other rounds that I can detail, although I have not looked yet.

Sentient species taste better...

I recall discussing this. This was in fact the way I thought it had been specified. However looking at the OP of the rules thread there's no mention of this at all.

It's possible that we decided to do it this way and I just forgot to add it to the write up but I actually suspect that although we extensively considered this we never fully came to an agreement to do it that way.

The reason I suspect this to be the case is again back to what became our over-riding premise of not wanting to be in the punishment business. Loss of a 2 point submission is a pretty severe penalty all by itself. It's pretty clear no team that has a non-submission could ever come close to winning a round. In this case disallowing a team from getting team bonuses because they didn't have the requisite 4 submissions means that team bonus points go to a team with a lower average.

In some sense perhaps the team with fewer submissions could be perceived as having the advantage, particularly if only the best players of the team submitted and the worst players didn't. Again I see the possibility of it being unfair in either direction. Does the team with the lower average deserve the bonus point. Sometimes it might but I think it more likely that it doesn't.

Again I think we have a decent system. The submission bonus was an attempt to give some motivation for folks to submit early so that everyone doesn't sit back and wait to see how everyone else did before submitting. Is the submission bonus perfect, absolutely not, but does it supply the desired motivation, yes it does.

The idea is that no one wants non-submissions. They're about the worst thing possible for the league for all the reasons discussed, but in all honesty I think we have a system that discourages them as much as possible while doesn't overly penalize a team if one occurs. Yes this may in some cases result in a minor unfairness to a team where everyone including the teams weaker player submitted versus a team where it happened that the weaker players didn't submit. But I think it is far more likely that the team hurt by the non-submission will be the team whose member didn't submit.

Again I think any attempt of getting into anything that can be taken as an added punishment for a non-submission is a bad way to go. Non-submissions take care of themselves soon enough because one or two non-submissions and the player is usually gone of their own volition. I don't think we need to do anything extra to hasten that process along and prefer to do our best to encourage folks to always submit as opposed to figuring out ways to punish them when they fail to submit.

As far as the general's we discussed this from the beginning and IIRC I expressed the opinion that neither of them had any real serious intent at honest participation. In the interest of fairness to all, they were welcomed and I still hope to be proven wrong but in all honesty I think we got exactly what most anyone should have expected from that quarter.

I disagree with both of these proposals for the reasons I mention above.


Absolutely. This is the point. These things tend to balance out. Nothing is perfect. If we introduce something then next month there will be complaints about whatever it is we introduce, because whatever it is we introduce will have it's own set of possible inequities.

I agree with Mumble on all points. I dont think that any rule changes about this particular issue would be good for the League as a whole. I believe what we have been using is the best way, when taking all possible effects into account. It's not perfect, but it's as good as it is going to get IMHO.

Sentient species taste better...

ok seens the rounds are over who won and who is going to been in charge of the next rounds.

Who's in charge of the next rounds is yet to be determined. I'm not totally sure but I think Silver offered to create the next rounds settings and Neilo has offered to do the job if no one else is interested. A lot of these discussions have been going on behind closed doors so it's probably appropriate to open these discussions up more publically.

IIRC Lord Arkham is really the only one that has volunteered and although he probably would make a fine commissioner I do think most longer term members of the MVL seem to want someone that's been in the league longer than 1 round.

A number of prominent members have been nominated or suggested and pretty much all have declined. From Silver's description the job is not all that much work but it does require constant attention, definitely at least once a day.

The thing about Neilo's offer is that no one would object but he's already done his turn and we shouldn't be dependent on just one person. I'm willing to take a turn if absolutely necessary as well but in my case what with being rulekeeper and the amount of influence I have within the league without the position I feel that me being commissioner is probably just too much Mumble even for me.

I think we need to make a distinction between people that don't want the job versus people that really can't do the job due to real life concerns. In some sense I agree with Ben Franklin that the best person for the job is the one that wants it the least.

Instead of an honor, being commissioner can be viewed as a chore. But it's an important chore and one that I feel people need to stand up and pull their fair share of the work.

In that light instead of considering that a commissioner is someone that runs for an office and is elected we might consider the commissioner to be reluctantly forced into the position however in this case it should only be for a limited time.

Given that there aren't a whole lot of veteran members exactly jumping for the position this is what I propose.

I would like to draft DethAdder to be the commissioner for the next three rounds after which he would be free to step down. Clearly if he truly *can't* do the job then we would have to look elsewhere but if it's just a matter of not *wanting* the job I think he should allow us to force it onto him anyway. After all it would only be for three rounds.

Of course all this is subject to agreement by the league as a whole. So what do people think of this idea?

ok



well i am intrested but am new so its up to the people

Mumble & Silver, you changed my mind. I assumed being commissioner would involve a lot more time than I could give, but from Silver's description, I can certainly do it. I'm on the forums everyday already, so inattention certainly wouldnt be a problem. I'll accept Mumble's nomination from a few days ago. I dont desire to be commissioner, but the office does need to be filled. So I assume we'll have an election soon, as a few others have expressed some interest?

Following the good example of Neilo and Silver, a replacement for the Team D captain would be needed. If that becomes necesarry, I nominate Ragnar1, should he wish to become the new captain.

Also, I assume we would need a new scorekeeper too. Is there anybody who would wish to volunteer?

Sentient species taste better...

Actually, its required that the Commissioner not be a Captain, and that the VC and Commissioner are not on the same team.

Glad you decided to throw your name in KP.

May I suggest that you all find out soon if DA is willing to also run for the job and get your elections going within the next week here or so, so that you can get ready to move on to Round 10. Currently, you have Freeman43, Lord_Arkham, and KzintiPatriarch that have been nominated.

Obv scorekeeper would need to be replaced at some point, but i doubt its as "pressing" esp since im sure both you (KP) and Mumble would keep track of scores and submissions in any case.

True, I was keeping my own scoresheet before I was scorekeeper, and I'll still be doing it regardless if I'm still in that post or not. It's part of the fun for me.

Sentient species taste better...

Good. That's better than having to draft someone. However I do wonder how much DA would have really protested if we'd dragged him kicking and screaming to the job.

Regarding an election we now have both Lord Arkham and now Freeman that have expressed interest. We certainly have nothing in the rules that excludes either but the point about lack of time in the league is something that should probably be considered.

Again I want to preface that I have nothing against either Lord Arkham or Freeman but I just would feel uneasy about their lack of experience in the league. Add a few months of experience under their belts and I would have no issue with either. If I'm not mistaken this round was the first for both. While I certainly can't speak for the entire league I do know that a number of veteran members share this opinion.

The thing is, do we want to go down this garden path and discuss this to death and then have to vote on whether to have a minimum membership length for commissioner and how long it should be? I don't think we need this at the moment because we have enough other things to worry about besides the commissioner. As KP mentions if he becomes commissioner we would need a new scorekeeper. Even if he doesn't become commissioner we still need a new vice commissioner. I'd be happy with Lord Arkham or Freeman in either of those positions.

My own personal preference is to have an election between two credible candidates each of which are willing to accept the job. By credible candidates I mean someone that has experience in the League and also has what I would call "forum" presence as well.

Certainly KP satisfies both of those criteria but to have an election we still need another credible candidate. I nominated KP and I stand by that nomination but I've also expressed interest in DA as commissioner and I stand by that as well. Either of these would make an excellent commissioner, have been in the league since it's inception and are both well known and well liked throughout these forums.

I would also like to nominate DA as a candidate for commissioner. Previously I was suggesting that he be drafted to the position whether he wanted it or not. Given that KP has reconsidered and accepted the nomination then DA wouldn't need to feel pressured into accepting but as I initially said perhaps he could be talked into the job anyway.

In any case failing DA willing to accept a nomination I still feel we would need a 2nd credible candidate before we could have an election.

In conclusion I don't want to be perceived as ramming some kind of unpopular decision down anyones throat. Everyone is encouraged to speak their own mind and express their own opinion but we were basically doing nothing and I felt the need to take the bull by the horns and try to press towards a solution.

[edit]

Technically I don't think Freeman43 or Lord_Arkham have been actually nominated. They have each expressed interest in the position but were not specifically nominated by another MVL member. Again this is a technicality and I'm sure we could scrounge up a nomination for both of them if that's what we want to do but again I do think we need to consider the experience level.

[/edit]

Sorry to my team for not posting a game. This is one of the reasons why I never want to be in charge.

I'm in a big case, and will not be able to be active here at all until August 2nd at the soonest.

Good luck all!

Seems like a close round.

~ Wyndstar

thank you mimble well if you fell this way then probaly everybody else dose. but i just whant to ponit out that i thought i give it a try am acttive in the forums and new to the game i am not, i even have a empire that is in 16 in rank so i am not a vet nor am i a newbie am some where between. if KP will take me as his VC then i will join him in the race but if not i will give it a try.

VC is totally separate from commissioner. We've never had an election for VC. FireBender was just appointed as VC because he really wanted the job. How we go about picking a new one I'm not sure but if you have interest you'll certainly be considered. Whatever we do for VC will happen after the commissioner is decided. Most likely the first job for the commissioner is to figure out how we should select the VC.

For most everything we don't make a distinction based on someone's experience level. If someone want's to help out usually that's enough, but the commissioner needs to make rules and more importantly make exceptions to rules and we actually have a pretty complex set of rules that someone new would have great difficultly figuring out.

In any case if you want to help out I'm sure there's a place for you to be able to do so.

Where is the breakdown of this round please?



I too recall this and as i understood it it was an accepted fact that to be eligible for team BP's that a team would need the minimum 4 base games. Has this (bonuses without the 4 base games) occurred this round, i assume so since it has been brought up (again where is the scoring info) and has it occurred previously? If it is not in the rules perhaps leaving as it is would be best as suggested as we may break any precedent set in the past.



This comment is incorrect and frankly, kinda makes Team E out to be a bunch of whiners. Iztok did indeed submit in this round and it was rather late too, are you thinking of another round KP?

As for the comments about Team E showing fairness, i don't believe that any 1 member of my team has done anything but. Comments both DA and i have made show frustration at the loss of what we believed a win using a specific strategy that has blown up in our faces, but, we both accepted the result with no arguing or bickering.

I still feel the submission bonus rules need to be reworked in that it allows for deliberate non submitals to be able to receive BP's. This has to be addressed.

Now i am in no way stating that i believe this has occurred here, but there should be no room for the that to be exploited in the first place.

If something similar to this has occurred before in the league, then it is a shame that it went by unnoticed and if team E was the beneficiary in that event i would have thought it just as unfair that it occurred as i do now.

I think KP would make a fine commish so i withdraw my offer to take over as commish.

I think KP would make a fine Commissioner.

I was debating whether to throw my name in or not, but wasn't going to unless I knew there was a need.

I have gotten a lot of enjoyment from the MVL the last ten months and do feel it is my duty to give something back. I'll accept the nomination. If now is not to be the time for me, then like I said KzintiPatriarch will do a great job IMO .

I think that the rules are imperfect because perfect rules are not possible. There is possibly even more room for bonus point manipulation by having a team's two strongest players play two games each with the same focus (score or speed). Submit the best game by each player, have all remaining team-mates not play a qualifying game that round and not announce, then if I understand the rules correctly the two remaining games by the 2 strongest players would be selected to replace them (as long as these were the only two extra qualifying games played by team members). This would basically lock a 12 point round (8 base +2 team speed or score + 2 bonus points).

I also think that the above scenario is irrelevant because no one would choose to pursue such a scorched earth approach to the MVL. For the same reason, I don't think intentional non-submission as a tactical measure is likely to ever be a real issue. Perhaps we could just add a rather generic rule that "intentional non-submission, announced or un-announced, with the intent to manipulate the round's scoring, is not allowed. This rule will be enforced by the honor code." I would guess no one would have a problem with such a rule? If not, would that be enough to satisfy the concerns MVL members have raised regarding the submission bonus?

First the good.


Great.

Then the bad.


*deliberate* non submitals ???

Actually we do have something that addresses such a thing. In fact it was just added after languishing for almost a month of inattention.


To me someone dilberately not submitting a game, or casuing a teammate to not submit a game, specifically because the submission of that game would casue the team to lose a bonus is cheating, plain and simple. We *do* have an express policy that applies in this case.

Do you honestly believe that this occured this round or any previous round?

Well, Since this is going to continue I will lay it out the way I see it.

A team has the base four games completed quite quickly. Then within a few days of the end of the round it is realized that having the final player(s) submit would jeopardize the early submission bonus while not helping the team in any other way if said player can't get one of the other bonuses. Your still going to have your basescore of 8 while now gaining a bonus that you wouldn't of had if that player submitted so late in the round. I also thought it a little strange that the announcement wasn't made by the player and done with only two days left in the round. There should be some safeguard against that. Say if your announcement of not being able to submit comes in the last two weeks of the round then the announcement's time should be set as a submit time would. Also think the announcement should be made by the player to keep others from saving face for their team for a no call/no show.

I was going to let it go and just play, but insinuating that I'm whining or being bad sport while referencing inaccurate data is not sitting well with me. Iztok did submit in the round 5 btw. Reply #253 Here . I was not on Team E at the time and have never actually tried for a sub time bonus before now, so any history involving Team E and this did not involve me. I see the here and now and it looked a little "staged" to me.

If this comes off as whining or accusatory, then so be it.

Oh yea, and what happened to posting the breakdown of how the scores were accumulated. I know I can go see Mumble's breakdown at the ToE forums, but not everyone knows or has the gumption to look there.

I think we should have an election in order to be fair. That said, my vote goes to KP.

However, I'm afraid I will have to withdraw from the league for the time being. Major changes in my life lately provide very little time for gaming. I'm really happy, though, that all of you have managed to take my idea of a league and make it into a successful ongoing affair. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised by that, too, but good on you regardless.

Perhaps when I have some free time I will pop back and see how things are going.

I'd kinda like to see the breakdown.

My apologies for the incorrect information about a non-submittal in Round 5. That was before I was the scorekeeper, so my records from that round may not be totally complete. But it does remain that Velkin Kyil was a non-submittal that round. Yes, I do realize you were not on that team at that time, but Neilo was, and he voiced an objection as well.

If you do believe that the scoring was manipulated, then you should bring an direct accusation of deliberate score manipulation by non-submittal. That sort of manipulation would be in my opinion against the spirit of the league, and just plain cheating. Team D did nothing of the sort. And if you are accusing Team D, but in the same thread saying I'd make a fine commissioner, this is incongruous and non-sensical, because if what you believe is possibly true then you think that I and Team D are cheaters.

FYI, heres what happened for this round for Team D: Neither of the two generals ever showed up at the team forum. Homsar informed me about a week or week & a half into the round that he almost certainly wouldnt have time to submit, and I informed Silver that very same day. Etrius never responded to any later PMs about the MVL from me, so I dont have any clue what his status is. I PMd him again today, to see if he really wanted to participate in the MVL, and he has read the message, but not responded to that one either.

Sentient species taste better...

I hope I'm not mis-reading this, but DA, is your concern that the current rules do not seem to exclude score manipulation by deliberate non-submittal, and that in the context of that ambiguity situations like that which occurred this round create the appearance of unfairness? I don't think you were accusing team D of conspiring to have GeneralEtrius and Homstar to deliberately not submit this round to get the submission bonus, rather saying it simply looked bad (even though this wasn't cheating) and that a rule change to address the possibility could be a good idea. Is that right? Would you be satisfied with a rule formulated something like "Deliberate non-submission of an MVL game with the intent of manipulating the round scoring is forbidden"?