Originally posted by robbie carrobie Well well we now know who our friends are. Thankyou Russ for voting for a system that would have made the present one not only fairer and more competitive but also more exciting,
Well you know who your friends are
None of them supported you in this vote
I wish the vote had been to punish or not to punish and then vote on system change
I notice that Russ voted in favour of ELO and yet did not support it in any way before the vote
I am still convinced that if he had taken ELO back four or five years the result would have resulted in stagnation
I suppose now we have to wait to see what if any punishment you receive
Originally posted by padger Well you know who your friends are
None of them supported you in this vote
I wish the vote had been to punish or not to punish and then vote on system change
I notice that Russ voted in favour of ELO and yet did not support it in any way before the vote
I am still convinced that if he had taken ELO back four or five years the result would have resulted in stagnation
I suppose now we have to wait to see what if any punishment you receive
I for one would have supported option 3 if the punishment option had been kept separate.
Punishment should never have been a voter issue !!
What next ??
A vote on the future of forum bans ??
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I resent and protest this vote. The second option is based on an assumption of guilt that certain clans have behaved in a manner that is worthy of censure. To my knowledge not a single rule has been broken and those how have made accusations have been unable to proffer a single piece of evidence of a single game where the outcome was prearranged de ...[text shortened]... o are the people who voted for it) and clearly there is just as much popular support for reform.
Who cares what you think ?
And if calling those who don't agree with you on the merits of your clan rating system stupid is all you offer, then you have offered nothing !!
For the record, we understand only too well how the clan rating system (not the ELO system) works.
I, for one, have critiqued clan rating better than you have ever sung its' praises.
Keep flapping your wings if it makes you feel better. 😴
I have learned from sources unnamed that option 2 garnered the most votes.
Now we wait to see action in the form data correction to the 2016 clan table and punitive actions against participants in the fiasco in 2016.
The clan table for 2015 has already been cleaned up.
We expect the same for the 2016 clan table. Nothing less !!
A final comment .......
It is unfortunate that the punishment protocol was tied to one and only one of the options presented to the clan leaders for vote.
Whether this was inadvertent or intentional is no longer worth discussing.
But what happened here was that this vote undermined any attempt to seek improvements to the current scoring system.
I myself put in considerable time and effort to put forth what I thought a proposal worth discussing.
And while I did not have a vote here, I was leaning towards option 3 as were quite a few clan leaders from what I have heard.
What we were left with a choice (my way or the highway) of clan rating or nothing !!
What turns out happened here was a 3 way split:
1 - punishment for bad sportsmanship by some individuals, very few individuals I might add.
2 - go with a new metric, a clan rating, which is, at best vague, and at worst stagnates the clan feature.
3 - simply do nothing which is a measure of apathy that clan leaders are left with.
Option 3 of the 6 options simply got squeezed out by a refusal to attach a punishment protocol to every option presented to the clan leaders.
From here, I see 3 main issues to address:
1 - fix the 2016 clan table fiasco. The mandate has been set by the vote.
2 - fix the corrupt data in the clan standings for 2016 & 2017. Something went out of whack with the clan rating beta pilot. I don't even look at the clan standings any more till this is fixed.
3 - keep an open mind to improvements to the clan system. A lot of sensible people have contributed to several threads in the site ideas forums. People do care and do want to improve this feature.
What people don't want is a system borne out of reaction to a grievance fest perpetuated endlessly by very few individuals.
Changes to this clan feature should NEVER have been about 1 or 2 individuals' crusade against just 1 or 2 clans.
And no change should never have been rammed down the throat of the clan community.
Site by now has learned this.
I remain open to improvements to this feature and I intend to put forth the proposals I submitted with input and feedback from a couple of individuals whose opinion I have respected, even though we didn't always agree on everything.
I now wait for the next actions from site administration.
Originally posted by mghrn55 I have learned from sources unnamed that option 2 garnered the most votes.
Now we wait to see action in the form data correction to the 2016 clan table and punitive actions against participants in the fiasco in 2016.
The clan table for 2015 has already been cleaned up.
We expect the same for the 2016 clan table. Nothing less !!
A final comment ..... ...[text shortened]... on everything.
I now wait for the next actions from site administration.
Have a good day.
punishing, while at the same time leaving a flawed construct in place, soles nothing
Originally posted by lemondrop punishing, while at the same time leaving a flawed construct in place, soles nothing
I agree .....
But hey !! I didn't package that together.
If you had read my correspondence, you would have figured that out.
And let's add a dose of reality to this conversation.
The perpetrators of the 2016 fiasco weren't acting to hi-lite a flaw in the system.
They were acting out of their perpetual obsession with the Metallica clan.
Their claims of carrying out their actions in protest of a flawed system is a fraud. Period !!
Originally posted by lemondrop punishing, while at the same time leaving a flawed construct in place, soles nothing
That is not really true, because the punishment will prevent the action from occurring.
The flaw in the system cannot be exploited, so it is no longer a problem.
Originally posted by shortcircuit That is not really true, because the punishment will prevent the action from occurring.
The flaw in the system cannot be exploited, so it is no longer a problem.
there is obvious collusion and there is subtle collusion
the latter being very hard to detect
fairness will always be an issue in this flawed system
just gonna have to live with it
Originally posted by lemondrop there is obvious collusion and there is subtle collusion
the latter being very hard to detect
fairness will always be an issue in this flawed system
just gonna have to live with it
Let us know when you detect the subtle collusion. 😀
We've been talking about the obvious collusion all along.
Originally posted by lemondrop those who voted for punishment also want to keep the same scoring system
you think Metallica wants to change the scoring
I don't think so
That is false !!!!
You haven't been paying attention.
A lot of people wanted punishment for the indiscretions of 2016.
But they were backed into a corner of selecting the only option that provided for the punishment.
Option 3 had considerable support !!
Clan Leader vote
18 Apr '17 16:48
Back to Top