League Discussion Thread!
Viewing forum thread.
Back to Funkypool Clan League Management.
Back to Forum List.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
18:56 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
howcome chris aint on the default panel? lol .. this guy has some good ideas
19:02 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
Don't agree with this it needs to stay as a majority vote as default team can vote for self preservation or the good of their clan rather than a subjective vote. At least if it stays at majority it gets round those who may choose to vote for other reasons.
chris said:
The only thing I might add would be in the judging of the decision by your default panel.
It seems, having read on here what happened the other day, there were still doubts as to whether MVP did or did not have an opportunity to get that last game completed in the final few days/hours based on the available and submitted information.
How about that for the Completion Bonus to be awarded in any instance where all the games are not finished it has to be a unanimous decision by all voting default panel members? All that means effectively is that the fall-back position would be not to award the bonus unless the evidence was so absolutely overwhelming as to be beyond reasonable doubt.
It seems, having read on here what happened the other day, there were still doubts as to whether MVP did or did not have an opportunity to get that last game completed in the final few days/hours based on the available and submitted information.
How about that for the Completion Bonus to be awarded in any instance where all the games are not finished it has to be a unanimous decision by all voting default panel members? All that means effectively is that the fall-back position would be not to award the bonus unless the evidence was so absolutely overwhelming as to be beyond reasonable doubt.
Don't agree with this it needs to stay as a majority vote as default team can vote for self preservation or the good of their clan rather than a subjective vote. At least if it stays at majority it gets round those who may choose to vote for other reasons.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
19:09 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
But if they cannot provide a genuine reason to the rest to justify 'vetoing' then in effect they are arguably cheating and ought to be removed anyway. If they can give a justifiable reason accepted by the rest then there must be sufficient doubt for the completion bonus not to be awarded.
The fact is that Completion Bonuses, where all games are not completed, should only really be awarded as a last resort.
The fact is that Completion Bonuses, where all games are not completed, should only really be awarded as a last resort.
19:10 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
Started typing this before the 2 previous posts were done lol
The only problem I have with that is who gets to vote on what default, for example if it was a vote on an MVP default should 2 players from our closest rivals for the league (Snooker Squad) get to vote, knowing all it would take is 1 of them to say no and we dont get the bonus. this is where maybe there should be 2 panels, one for each division, div 1 players doing div 2 defaults and vice versa.
The only problem I have with that is who gets to vote on what default, for example if it was a vote on an MVP default should 2 players from our closest rivals for the league (Snooker Squad) get to vote, knowing all it would take is 1 of them to say no and we dont get the bonus. this is where maybe there should be 2 panels, one for each division, div 1 players doing div 2 defaults and vice versa.
19:11 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
I would also suggest increasing the default panel size (Why not one player from each clan?)
Then take the majority decision of the votes from all.
The two teams involved should also have no voting rights for that fixture so all other teams decide the outcome.
Then take the majority decision of the votes from all.
The two teams involved should also have no voting rights for that fixture so all other teams decide the outcome.
19:24 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
How about defaults being anonymised as well as split into the 2 divisions (to avoid an anonymous player sounding familiar because they're in the same league)?
To avoid confusion use codenames rather than 'player 1' and 'player 2' which only one person would know (who would be independent from awarding default scores)
This person would need to keep track of everything anonymised unless a clever person can get some code written for it.
That would mean a person can't really be bias (knowingly or unknowingly) as they don't know the players in question.
To avoid confusion use codenames rather than 'player 1' and 'player 2' which only one person would know (who would be independent from awarding default scores)
This person would need to keep track of everything anonymised unless a clever person can get some code written for it.
That would mean a person can't really be bias (knowingly or unknowingly) as they don't know the players in question.
19:26 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
The argument for the MVP fixture was that game had started, the opponent then left to play tourney, he remained on pool for more than enough time to complete the game but chose to play tournies etc. If he had continued to play the game the fixture would have been completed.
The player then went missing for a few days and only appeared back in the early hours of Saturday morning and the Sunday night before fixture deadline. Ab pm him to ask if we could get sean_paul on could he play him on the Sunday when he was finally on at a time where it could be played and his response was to log out.
Out of the league runners who voted some have went for the fact that game would have been completed if he didn't leave to play a tourney which no one should be doing anyway.
Others voted that because he had showing face again the game could have been completed at these times thus what happened previously was irrelevant. Even though the times he reappeared never matched his opponent, they were limited and when giving the chance if we could find our player he left.
This is why a majority vote has to be the way forward as every one has an opinion but if one person says no why should it stop it if all others are voting yes. Chances are the majority will come up with the correct decision most of the time.
For anything to change on FCL to change it has always been a majority vote so it should be the same when making decisions that effect the league.
chris said:
But if they cannot provide a genuine reason to the rest to justify 'vetoing' then in effect they are arguably cheating and ought to be removed anyway. If they can give a justifiable reason accepted by the rest then there must be sufficient doubt for the completion bonus not to be awarded.
The fact is that Completion Bonuses, where all games are not completed, should only really be awarded as a last resort.
The fact is that Completion Bonuses, where all games are not completed, should only really be awarded as a last resort.
The argument for the MVP fixture was that game had started, the opponent then left to play tourney, he remained on pool for more than enough time to complete the game but chose to play tournies etc. If he had continued to play the game the fixture would have been completed.
The player then went missing for a few days and only appeared back in the early hours of Saturday morning and the Sunday night before fixture deadline. Ab pm him to ask if we could get sean_paul on could he play him on the Sunday when he was finally on at a time where it could be played and his response was to log out.
Out of the league runners who voted some have went for the fact that game would have been completed if he didn't leave to play a tourney which no one should be doing anyway.
Others voted that because he had showing face again the game could have been completed at these times thus what happened previously was irrelevant. Even though the times he reappeared never matched his opponent, they were limited and when giving the chance if we could find our player he left.
This is why a majority vote has to be the way forward as every one has an opinion but if one person says no why should it stop it if all others are voting yes. Chances are the majority will come up with the correct decision most of the time.
For anything to change on FCL to change it has always been a majority vote so it should be the same when making decisions that effect the league.
19:27 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
Great in theory but I would guess for most instances you could easily work out what game it was which would defeat the purpose of it.
zantetsukenz said:
How about defaults being anonymised as well as split into the 2 divisions (to avoid an anonymous player sounding familiar because they're in the same league)?
To avoid confusion use codenames rather than 'player 1' and 'player 2' which only one person would know (who would be independent from awarding default scores)
This person would need to keep track of everything anonymised unless a clever person can get some code written for it.
That would mean a person can't really be bias (knowingly or unknowingly) as they don't know the players in question.
To avoid confusion use codenames rather than 'player 1' and 'player 2' which only one person would know (who would be independent from awarding default scores)
This person would need to keep track of everything anonymised unless a clever person can get some code written for it.
That would mean a person can't really be bias (knowingly or unknowingly) as they don't know the players in question.
Great in theory but I would guess for most instances you could easily work out what game it was which would defeat the purpose of it.
19:33 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
Why not then throw in extra defaults (which don't actually mean anything) to make it harder to guess?
e.g. if there are 3 defaults in a fixture set, give anonymous information of 4 matches where it's hard to guess which match is which (especially when using people from the other division who may not really be able to guess, or even changing the representative for each clan a couple of times in a season)
e.g. if there are 3 defaults in a fixture set, give anonymous information of 4 matches where it's hard to guess which match is which (especially when using people from the other division who may not really be able to guess, or even changing the representative for each clan a couple of times in a season)
19:35 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
Sounds good but a lot of work i would think to create a pile of default information for fictional games, also information for fictional games would need to be good or may stand out anyway.
zantetsukenz said:
Why not then throw in extra defaults (which don't actually mean anything) to make it harder to guess?
e.g. if there are 3 defaults in a fixture set, give anonymous information of 4 matches where it's hard to guess which match is which (especially when using people from the other division who may not really be able to guess, or even changing the representative for each clan a couple of times in a season)
e.g. if there are 3 defaults in a fixture set, give anonymous information of 4 matches where it's hard to guess which match is which (especially when using people from the other division who may not really be able to guess, or even changing the representative for each clan a couple of times in a season)
Sounds good but a lot of work i would think to create a pile of default information for fictional games, also information for fictional games would need to be good or may stand out anyway.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
19:40 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
Don't want to start a debate over a past decision which is done and dusted.
However trying to take that situation forward as if it was to happen in a future game...
1) Presumably there is proof he left to play a tournament
2) Presumably there was proof that after that tournament he stayed online, refused to continue the game and continued to carry on playing tournaments
3) Presumably there is proof that the player was then offline apart from those two occasions in the last weekend
4) Presumably there was proof that your player was not around on either occasion but that messages had been sent asking for it to finish and giving times of availability
5) Presumably there was prrof that when there was contact on the last Sunday to try and complete before the deadline, the player logs out without responding or making a reasonable effort
If all those exist then I can't see anyone vetoing a bonus. If they didn't then arguably there is sufficient doubt that the fault lay 100% with one team/player not to award the Completion Bonus.
That is based entirely on my view that ordinarily Completion Bonuses should only be awarded where all games that CAN be completed (ie neither player is banned/deactivated after it has started) ARE. No problem with them being awarded where one player has been banned/deactivated.
Yes that is a lot of information you need to keep to try and have the bonus awarded. If you don't want to do that then you accept the fall back position that it won't be awarded.
Edited at 17:44 Sat 10/12/11 (GMT)
However trying to take that situation forward as if it was to happen in a future game...
1) Presumably there is proof he left to play a tournament
2) Presumably there was proof that after that tournament he stayed online, refused to continue the game and continued to carry on playing tournaments
3) Presumably there is proof that the player was then offline apart from those two occasions in the last weekend
4) Presumably there was proof that your player was not around on either occasion but that messages had been sent asking for it to finish and giving times of availability
5) Presumably there was prrof that when there was contact on the last Sunday to try and complete before the deadline, the player logs out without responding or making a reasonable effort
If all those exist then I can't see anyone vetoing a bonus. If they didn't then arguably there is sufficient doubt that the fault lay 100% with one team/player not to award the Completion Bonus.
That is based entirely on my view that ordinarily Completion Bonuses should only be awarded where all games that CAN be completed (ie neither player is banned/deactivated after it has started) ARE. No problem with them being awarded where one player has been banned/deactivated.
Yes that is a lot of information you need to keep to try and have the bonus awarded. If you don't want to do that then you accept the fall back position that it won't be awarded.
Edited at 17:44 Sat 10/12/11 (GMT)
19:43 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
copy and paste information from other defaults? (past or from a default that member isn't involved with)
Or if the default information recieved was standardised, it may not be difficult to add an extra one or two which fit in with others
I know it's all just making more work, but its an option at least if someone thinks it is feasable to do
Or if the default information recieved was standardised, it may not be difficult to add an extra one or two which fit in with others
I know it's all just making more work, but its an option at least if someone thinks it is feasable to do
19:48 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
just to clear it up it is by majority vote already, if people want 1 from each clan for defaults panel then can be discussed at end of season.
chris's bonus rule ill check the current rules and add if its not there.
i dont feel comfortable using "codenames" as the info is private anyway, usually we can see who is biased and who isn't so no problems there.
chris's bonus rule ill check the current rules and add if its not there.
i dont feel comfortable using "codenames" as the info is private anyway, usually we can see who is biased and who isn't so no problems there.
19:48 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
I would argue that a lot of defaults would not have such information, as what makes for sufficient proof? (screenshots can easily be edited) If all that was needed before a default was given (even if it was obvious) then it would require a lot of effort on the part of the player who may already be trying their hardest to get a game played, that suggests they aren't trying hard enough doesn't it?
chris said:
Don't want to start a debate over a past decision which is done and dusted.
However trying to take that situation forward as if it was to happen in a future game...
1) Presumably there is proof he left to play a tournament
2) Presumably there was proof that after that tournament he stayed online, refused to continue the game and continued to carry on playing tournaments
3) Presumably there is proof that the player was then offline apart from those two occasions in the last weekend
4) Presumably there was proof that your player was not around on either occasion but that messages had been sent asking for it to finish and giving times of availability
5) Presumably there was prrof that when there was contact on the last Sunday to try and complete before the deadline, the player logs out without responding or making a reasonable effort
If all those exist then I can't see anyone vetoing a bonus. If they didn't then arguably there is sufficient doubt that the fault lay 100% with one team/player not to award the Completion Bonus.
However trying to take that situation forward as if it was to happen in a future game...
1) Presumably there is proof he left to play a tournament
2) Presumably there was proof that after that tournament he stayed online, refused to continue the game and continued to carry on playing tournaments
3) Presumably there is proof that the player was then offline apart from those two occasions in the last weekend
4) Presumably there was proof that your player was not around on either occasion but that messages had been sent asking for it to finish and giving times of availability
5) Presumably there was prrof that when there was contact on the last Sunday to try and complete before the deadline, the player logs out without responding or making a reasonable effort
If all those exist then I can't see anyone vetoing a bonus. If they didn't then arguably there is sufficient doubt that the fault lay 100% with one team/player not to award the Completion Bonus.
I would argue that a lot of defaults would not have such information, as what makes for sufficient proof? (screenshots can easily be edited) If all that was needed before a default was given (even if it was obvious) then it would require a lot of effort on the part of the player who may already be trying their hardest to get a game played, that suggests they aren't trying hard enough doesn't it?
19:59 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
This is why we need to get div 1 players to defaults for div 2 and vice versa, then no one can have a vested interest and a need to be biased!!!
dgeneratio said:
just to clear it up it is by majority vote already, if people want 1 from each clan for defaults panel then can be discussed at end of season.
chris's bonus rule ill check the current rules and add if its not there.
i dont feel comfortable using "codenames" as the info is private anyway, usually we can see who is biased and who isn't so no problems there.
chris's bonus rule ill check the current rules and add if its not there.
i dont feel comfortable using "codenames" as the info is private anyway, usually we can see who is biased and who isn't so no problems there.
This is why we need to get div 1 players to defaults for div 2 and vice versa, then no one can have a vested interest and a need to be biased!!!
20:00 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
can discuss it at end of season if you wish, at the moment im happy with the default staff i have already
20:06 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
Even with this people can vote 'no' as one league runner has already stated he voted no as it wouldn't have mattered what information was put forward as a completion bonus is purely for completed games, now this is his opinion and who is to say if it is right or wrong but is another reason why it needs to be a majority vote.
chris said:
Don't want to start a debate over a past decision which is done and dusted.
However trying to take that situation forward as if it was to happen in a future game...
1) Presumably there is proof he left to play a tournament
2) Presumably there was proof that after that tournament he stayed online, refused to continue the game and continued to carry on playing tournaments
3) Presumably there is proof that the player was then offline apart from those two occasions in the last weekend
4) Presumably there was proof that your player was not around on either occasion but that messages had been sent asking for it to finish and giving times of availability
5) Presumably there was prrof that when there was contact on the last Sunday to try and complete before the deadline, the player logs out without responding or making a reasonable effort
If all those exist then I can't see anyone vetoing a bonus. If they didn't then arguably there is sufficient doubt that the fault lay 100% with one team/player not to award the Completion Bonus.
That is based entirely on my view that ordinarily Completion Bonuses should only be awarded where all games that CAN be completed (ie neither player is banned/deactivated after it has started) ARE. No problem with them being awarded where one player has been banned/deactivated.
Yes that is a lot of information you need to keep to try and have the bonus awarded. If you don't want to do that then you accept the fall back position that it won't be awarded.
Edited at 17:44 Sat 10/12/11 (GMT)
However trying to take that situation forward as if it was to happen in a future game...
1) Presumably there is proof he left to play a tournament
2) Presumably there was proof that after that tournament he stayed online, refused to continue the game and continued to carry on playing tournaments
3) Presumably there is proof that the player was then offline apart from those two occasions in the last weekend
4) Presumably there was proof that your player was not around on either occasion but that messages had been sent asking for it to finish and giving times of availability
5) Presumably there was prrof that when there was contact on the last Sunday to try and complete before the deadline, the player logs out without responding or making a reasonable effort
If all those exist then I can't see anyone vetoing a bonus. If they didn't then arguably there is sufficient doubt that the fault lay 100% with one team/player not to award the Completion Bonus.
That is based entirely on my view that ordinarily Completion Bonuses should only be awarded where all games that CAN be completed (ie neither player is banned/deactivated after it has started) ARE. No problem with them being awarded where one player has been banned/deactivated.
Yes that is a lot of information you need to keep to try and have the bonus awarded. If you don't want to do that then you accept the fall back position that it won't be awarded.
Edited at 17:44 Sat 10/12/11 (GMT)
Even with this people can vote 'no' as one league runner has already stated he voted no as it wouldn't have mattered what information was put forward as a completion bonus is purely for completed games, now this is his opinion and who is to say if it is right or wrong but is another reason why it needs to be a majority vote.
20:08 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
dgeneratio said:
just to clear it up it is by majority vote already.
20:10 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
Yes i know, i was just trying to show chris the reason why it needs to be a majority vote rather than a suggestion he made earlier which said it would need to be all which i don't think would ever work.
dgeneratio said:
dgeneratio said:
just to clear it up it is by majority vote already.
Yes i know, i was just trying to show chris the reason why it needs to be a majority vote rather than a suggestion he made earlier which said it would need to be all which i don't think would ever work.
20:11 Sat 10 Dec 11 (GMT) [Link]
it could never be all in my opinion will always be someone who will disagree.
| Unable to post | |
|---|---|
| Reason: | You must log in before you can post |
League Discussion Thread!
Back to Top of this Page
Back to Funkypool Clan League Management.
Back to Forum List.