| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/30/2006 02:58:26 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by rjkstesch:
I would like to politely ask for a rule change. I'm requesting that a one time replacement (substitution) of players be allowed on each team. I would go further to limit this replacement to a player who's average is equal or lower to the player being replaced, AND that the player being replaced can not have submitted to any challenge in the past two weeks. Furthermore, I would state that the original team average remain the same.
Reasons: 1) The teams were set up quite a ways ahead of the actual beginning play in the league. During the interim time, circumstances have changed which keep committed players from being able to keep that commitment. Permanently replacing a player who can no longer play seems reasonable.
2) Most of the teams have been impacted by at least one player who has not submitted in the past two weeks. Of the 140 players, 21 have not submitted in that time, about 15%. That is a significant number so early in the season. In all likelyhood, others will have to drop out in spite of good intentions.
3) Substitutions were allowed in the 1st round, but appeared to have been stacked to higher scoring players. By requiring that the replacement have a equal or lower average, we prevent the "stacking of the deck".
4) Requiring the replaced player to miss 2 weeks indicates a strong need to "drop out" and keeps any team from benefiting by bringing in a replacement.
5) Scott should not have to do any recalculations because of replacements. Keeping team averages the same, plus other statistical compromises (individual improvement/team improvement) made as needed will allow the replacements without killing our great statistician.
Gudrun, our team captain, is making this request of Scott. I'd like those in the WPL to see the proposal and share your feeling in order to help Scott make a decision for the group.
Thanks for reading this epistle. Now share your feelings.
Becky |
I agree - as long as the rules are strictly adhered to |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 04:34:41 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by rjkstesch:
I would like to politely ask for a rule change. I'm requesting that a one time replacement (substitution) of players be allowed on each team. I would go further to limit this replacement to a player who's average is equal or lower to the player being replaced, AND that the player being replaced can not have submitted to any challenge in the past two weeks. Furthermore, I would state that the original team average remain the same.
Reasons: 1) The teams were set up quite a ways ahead of the actual beginning play in the league. During the interim time, circumstances have changed which keep committed players from being able to keep that commitment. Permanently replacing a player who can no longer play seems reasonable.
2) Most of the teams have been impacted by at least one player who has not submitted in the past two weeks. Of the 140 players, 21 have not submitted in that time, about 15%. That is a significant number so early in the season. In all likelyhood, others will have to drop out in spite of good intentions.
3) Substitutions were allowed in the 1st round, but appeared to have been stacked to higher scoring players. By requiring that the replacement have a equal or lower average, we prevent the "stacking of the deck".
4) Requiring the replaced player to miss 2 weeks indicates a strong need to "drop out" and keeps any team from benefiting by bringing in a replacement.
5) Scott should not have to do any recalculations because of replacements. Keeping team averages the same, plus other statistical compromises (individual improvement/team improvement) made as needed will allow the replacements without killing our great statistician.
Gudrun, our team captain, is making this request of Scott. I'd like those in the WPL to see the proposal and share your feeling in order to help Scott make a decision for the group.
Thanks for reading this epistle. Now share your feelings.
Becky |
Well I disagree, surely 4 out of the seven people will submit and if the don't well they are not being a team player. This competition is all about being consistent and entering as many challenges as possible if your team of seven can't manage to get 4 players well it's really a lack of commitment by the team members.
Besides all of that I hate seeing rule changes during a contest we were all aware of the rules well before the competition started
Message edited by author 2006-07-30 04:35:17.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 06:28:56 AM · #128 |
I would relish the opertunity to be back on the team after my ban and it looks as if team nikon have a couple of Non-Runners due to no time so pretty please can i join again... hehehehe
I used to be team cap but got a ban as we all know and have bowed deeply and had my apology accepted etc etc now i need that SPARK back in my life
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 11:05:40 AM · #129 |
Bump for the morning group.
Becky
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 11:52:35 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by rjkstesch:
I would like to politely ask for a rule change. I'm requesting that a one time replacement (substitution) of players be allowed on each team. I would go further to limit this replacement to a player who's average is equal or lower to the player being replaced, AND that the player being replaced can not have submitted to any challenge in the past two weeks. Furthermore, I would state that the original team average remain the same.
Reasons: 1) The teams were set up quite a ways ahead of the actual beginning play in the league. During the interim time, circumstances have changed which keep committed players from being able to keep that commitment. Permanently replacing a player who can no longer play seems reasonable.
2) Most of the teams have been impacted by at least one player who has not submitted in the past two weeks. Of the 140 players, 21 have not submitted in that time, about 15%. That is a significant number so early in the season. In all likelyhood, others will have to drop out in spite of good intentions.
3) Substitutions were allowed in the 1st round, but appeared to have been stacked to higher scoring players. By requiring that the replacement have a equal or lower average, we prevent the "stacking of the deck".
4) Requiring the replaced player to miss 2 weeks indicates a strong need to "drop out" and keeps any team from benefiting by bringing in a replacement.
5) Scott should not have to do any recalculations because of replacements. Keeping team averages the same, plus other statistical compromises (individual improvement/team improvement) made as needed will allow the replacements without killing our great statistician.
Gudrun, our team captain, is making this request of Scott. I'd like those in the WPL to see the proposal and share your feeling in order to help Scott make a decision for the group.
Thanks for reading this epistle. Now share your feelings.
Becky |
Hi,
Thank you for your suggestion but the rules of WPL2 were set well before the beginning of the season. We ask that captains choose their team players wisely. I know that the team can not help it when players don't show up and I also can understand when some players are not able to enter a challenge. I am just as frustrated as some of you are that users signed up knowing the rules and have not participated.
There are a couple of reason that no substitutes were allowed this season. 1) The most obvious is that you only need four scores to generate a level WPL team score. Each team has seven players so in essence each team already has three subs. 2) Last season a team or two dropped a player (requested them to drop out) so they could obtain a player with an higher average. NOT GOOD! and some people waiting on the sub list from the beginning were being overlooked for users that had higher averages.
I can understand your request but I don't see any reason to reimplement the substitute rule. As it sits now there are around 18% no shows (people that has not participated). Since each team has seven photographers and only need four to produce a team average I don't see a problem unless we begin seeing no-shows in the 35 to 40% range.
A team will still receive an average score even if less than four photographers enter. BUT your average would be low and hurt your chances of winning that week and lower your teams overall WPL average which could be used as a tie breaker at the end of the season.
Hope this helps.
regards,
SDW
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 12:48:13 PM · #131 |
How teams abused or did not abuse the old rules should not be the issue in this discussion, I would love for us all to just stay in the present.
We have a member on our team that can not participate at all during WPL2 and a couple that are truly busy. We know that we will have a hard time getting 4 submissions in each week and that is why we have asked if this is possible. A constructive discussion is always good.
If it is a fact that absolutely no WPL2 rules will be changed during the weeks to come, then a discussion is futile.
If there is a chance, then I just would like to say that in the case of substitutes, any system that makes it impossible for teams to take a substitute so that they can better their chances would be good. That would mean that teams would only use a sub because an ordinary member can not participate.
If somewhere between 15 and 20% have not participated yet, I find that a high number. Should we be faced with a situtation in a few weeks that several teams do not have the members they need to participate, the WPL2 will not be functioning very well. Winning in a situation like that might not be so hot. If a team only has 3 or 4 left, they might throw in the towel and then we have walk-overs here and there.
It might very well be that it is part of the team spirit to make it all the way to the end, and I am sure that we all try our darndest to take part. But if participants suddenly face a hectic working situation, then dpc and wpl are probably not the first things on their minds.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 01:02:34 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by GuGi:
If somewhere between 15 and 20% have not participated yet, I find that a high number. Should we be faced with a situtation in a few weeks that several teams do not have the members they need to participate, the WPL2 will not be functioning very well. Winning in a situation like that might not be so hot. If a team only has 3 or 4 left, they might throw in the towel and then we have walk-overs here and there.
It might very well be that it is part of the team spirit to make it all the way to the end, and I am sure that we all try our darndest to take part. But if participants suddenly face a hectic working situation, then dpc and wpl are probably not the first things on their minds. |
From my perspective, if large enough numbers of "team members" find themselves unable or unwilling to complete the season, that's a better argument against having team leagues at all than it is for open substitution in such cases. The 7 members/4 scores process was set in place specifically to cover varying degrees of member activity; in essence we already HAVE 3 subs on every team, and they are rotating subs.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 04:10:12 PM · #133 |
i'm against this - let's just play by the rules that we all agreed upon before the start.
Originally posted by rjkstesch:
I would like to politely ask for a rule change. I'm requesting that a one time replacement (substitution) of players be allowed on each team. I would go further to limit this replacement to a player who's average is equal or lower to the player being replaced, AND that the player being replaced can not have submitted to any challenge in the past two weeks. Furthermore, I would state that the original team average remain the same.
Reasons: 1) The teams were set up quite a ways ahead of the actual beginning play in the league. During the interim time, circumstances have changed which keep committed players from being able to keep that commitment. Permanently replacing a player who can no longer play seems reasonable.
2) Most of the teams have been impacted by at least one player who has not submitted in the past two weeks. Of the 140 players, 21 have not submitted in that time, about 15%. That is a significant number so early in the season. In all likelyhood, others will have to drop out in spite of good intentions.
3) Substitutions were allowed in the 1st round, but appeared to have been stacked to higher scoring players. By requiring that the replacement have a equal or lower average, we prevent the "stacking of the deck".
4) Requiring the replaced player to miss 2 weeks indicates a strong need to "drop out" and keeps any team from benefiting by bringing in a replacement.
5) Scott should not have to do any recalculations because of replacements. Keeping team averages the same, plus other statistical compromises (individual improvement/team improvement) made as needed will allow the replacements without killing our great statistician.
Gudrun, our team captain, is making this request of Scott. I'd like those in the WPL to see the proposal and share your feeling in order to help Scott make a decision for the group.
Thanks for reading this epistle. Now share your feelings.
Becky |
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 05:01:33 PM · #134 |
What would someone do if they were to want to join the league (for next season) are you going to allow more teams, or expand each team to 8 or 9 players, it looks like fun.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 06:46:12 PM · #135 |
I carefully looked at the issue before proposing this change. Had it only been our team, I'd have said, "We'll eat it." However, it has impacted a majority of the teams, some much more than we've been hit. Two of our three will be able to participate on some level. The other player is out for the season.
The non-submitting issue has also hit the repeat teams more than it has the newer teams. This means a whole division could be hit with problems as teams have trouble with submissions.
Yes, we were warned. My understanding was that these were the rules, take them or leave. Sometimes, the implications of a rule are not known until after the rule is implimented.
The first season had 7 weeks, plus payoffs. This season has 10 weeks (one bye week) plus play-offs. That is a much longer commitment. The first season started 2 weeks after the team set up. This season started almost 8 weeks after initial team set ups. We are being asked to foresee our future ability to submit for a much longer time. The first season was about 12 weeks (less than 3 months) from initial thread to end of playoffs, while this season is about 21 weeks (under 5 months) from initial formation of teams to the end of payoffs. this increased time creates a more difficult time for all in keeping the commitment.
I would just like to see us discuss the issue, before it causes problems for the league.
Thanks for listening.
Becky
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 06:55:16 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
There are a couple of reason that no substitutes were allowed this season. ...2) Last season a team or two dropped a player (requested them to drop out) so they could obtain a player with an higher average. NOT GOOD! and some people waiting on the sub list from the beginning were being overlooked for users that had higher averages....
regards,SDW |
I agree that was a problem. Note that the suggested change only allows a permanent replacement AFTER 2 weeks of non-entry (consecutive, in my thinking) AND for a person of equal or LOWER average.
Thanks for discussing the issue.
Becky
Message edited by author 2006-07-30 18:56:21.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 07:01:50 PM · #137 |
To me, it seems like part of the challenge is to have to submit weekly for such a long period of time (and for me especially, who prefers to average about two challenges a year). Team SMITE played round one with six players and I suspect we'll be playing round two with at least as few. It's just part of the challenge. My first inclination would be to say no subs. My second would be to say that if we allow them, there should be an ordered list of substitutes based on people who didn't make a team during recuitments and that teams would have to pick the first person on the list whose average was equal to or below the person they were replacing (ie. you couldn't pick and choose replacements, even with the average score requirement.)
That being said, this is all for fun and I'm game for whatever the majority wants. |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 07:10:42 PM · #138 |
I think the rule change with the mentioned stipulations would be fine, however not for this round.
We all went in knowing the rules, including the length of time and amount of commitment that would be expected. Life does change and so do priorities but as Robert pointed out each team has, in essence, three alternates at this point in time.
Our team has someone who has not yet submitted for a challenge (that I noticed) since we started, but I don't think it would be considered fair at this juncture to allow substitutions.
So.. I say keep it as is for this round of the WPL and add the limited substitution rule to WPL3.
That said, should the creator of the WPL decide the change is warranted, I'm fine with that decision as well.
Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 07:15:56 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by rjkstesch:
I carefully looked at the issue before proposing this change. Had it only been our team, I'd have said, "We'll eat it." However, it has impacted a majority of the teams, some much more than we've been hit. Two of our three will be able to participate on some level. The other player is out for the season. |
I think this is a gross exaggeration. We have had 2 rounds for each of the 20 teams so in total 40 team entries. Minus a two byes I think.
Of that 38 team entries Steve may be able to tell us how many teams did not have 4 member entries, I think it is only 3 or 4. How can that be the majority? More like 10%.
It is all about being consistent and entering as many challenges as you can, maybe next season your team selection should take that in to consideration rather then the average score of it's members.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 07:23:45 PM · #140 |
Lets not move the goalposts, Season 2 has different rules to season 1 and whilst its longer than season 1 we all knew that at the start.
I am wondering what would stop team members from entering after signing up for season 2?
Any team that loses 3 members due to death or incapacity to use a camera for 3 months would be a very sad thing but I doubt it would happen?
I was prepared to resign from team Se7endipity due to family issues but my captain persuaded my to stay, and other than a self DQ I'v entered all the challenges thus far and shall continue to do my best (snap shots included).
I for one would be interested to hear reasons why people can't take shots? I used to pick and chose challenges but being forced to shoot for every challenge is helping me grow as a fotog (unfortunatly not making me better).
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 07:29:08 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Of that 38 team entries Steve may be able to tell us how many teams did not have 4 member entries, I think it is only 3 or 4. How can that be the majority? More like 10%.
|
As far as I can tell, Team Nikon and Team SMITE are the only two teams who not had four member entries during a competition week. |
|
|
|
07/30/2006 08:12:38 PM · #142 |
The WPL was set up to have fun but we had to set rules so everyone would be on an even playing field. I have looked at this issue since it came up early this morning. And I still do not see a need for a rule change and here is why.
1. Every team is subject to the same rules and the same length of time except the teams that make it to the playoffs. And I don̢۪t think those teams will mind the extra few weeks.
2. Yes, WPL1 was only six weeks but WPL is only 9 because of the bye-week each team has.
3. Captains should take a team leader roll. We are just now in the third week and we already know what week fours challenges are and after tonights rollover we will know that the members challenge will be for the fifth week. Email your team and see who is going to be able to participate. A little PM or Email may show them that they are needed and maybe they can find the time to submit.
4. And I would guess the biggest thing is if I, a person that is disabled, can take pictures for challenges, spend eight weeks setting up the site, and up almost every rollover night to enter 140 scores manually and updating the site for everyone to be able to view and enjoy don̢۪t think it is too much to ask a photographer (that agreed) to participate to take a few minutes to shoot and PP a photograph and enter it. I am not complaining one bit because I took on this project myself. No one asked me to do this or made me. I do this because I want people to have fun and it̢۪s fun for me. I am not condemning the rule request but even photographers with limited time, photographers that changed their mind and decided not to enter / participate, or whatever the reason - should look at the work others have put in to the WPL. I not talking about me as much as the 100+ photographers that takes that few minutes to enter just to support their team.
If the people want a WPL3 I would request that anyone send me any and all thoughts that you may have about rules and regulations. I store them all and try to communicate before the season starts with captains and photographers. I do take in account what the teams and photographer wants.
Message edited by author 2006-07-30 20:19:12.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 08:20:31 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by rjkstesch:
I carefully looked at the issue before proposing this change. Had it only been our team, I'd have said, "We'll eat it." However, it has impacted a majority of the teams, some much more than we've been hit. Two of our three will be able to participate on some level. The other player is out for the season. |
I think this is a gross exaggeration. We have had 2 rounds for each of the 20 teams so in total 40 team entries. Minus a two byes I think.
Of that 38 team entries Steve may be able to tell us how many teams did not have 4 member entries, I think it is only 3 or 4. How can that be the majority? More like 10%.
It is all about being consistent and entering as many challenges as you can, maybe next season your team selection should take that in to consideration rather then the average score of it's members. |
Sounds like a misunderstanding. ;-) A majority of the teams has had 1 or mored team mates who have not submitted yet (as of current postings). Two teams, Team Nikon and Team SMITE have had less than 4 team members enter on a particular week. Both have impacted our play. One helped us, one hurt us. So, of course, I've noticed. I looked to see if the other teams were having issues with a team mate not submitting for 2 consecutive weeks. A majority of teams had at least one player missing 2 consecutive weeks. Not all, but a majority. So I brought up the issue for discussion. That's all. :)
Just in case you feel I'm trying to play fast and loose, we would like to be able to permanently replaceDrJOnes with Alionic (former team captain, but not allowed to play when the WPL2 started.) Our other team mates will all be submitting. Marac is very content to sit out this go round according to the rules. It would be nice to have our team back together again.
Becky
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 08:30:41 PM · #144 |
Scott,
You amaze me. I am so impressed with all the work you've done to make this possible. My apologies that I may have implied you didn't take our feelings into account on the rules. I just didn't think about giving that input. (DUH!) You have been wonderful to work with.
I have had so much fun in the WPL and WPL2. Nothing will stop that for me. I just saw a potential problem that I wanted to see discussed WITHOUT adding additional work on your part or problem with team dynamics.
Even though the answer to the request is "NO", I appreciate the opportunity to share opinions.
Best regards,
Becky
|
|
|
|
07/30/2006 09:09:24 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by rjkstesch:
Scott,
You amaze me. I am so impressed with all the work you've done to make this possible. My apologies that I may have implied you didn't take our feelings into account on the rules. I just didn't think about giving that input. (DUH!) You have been wonderful to work with.
I have had so much fun in the WPL and WPL2. Nothing will stop that for me. I just saw a potential problem that I wanted to see discussed WITHOUT adding additional work on your part or problem with team dynamics.
Even though the answer to the request is "NO", I appreciate the opportunity to share opinions.
Best regards,
Becky |
Thank you for the complement and for the record I don't blame you for bringing up the issue. I just hope everyone can understand my decision.
Thanks,
SDW
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:02:24 AM · #146 |
Dear Scott.
I do hope you do not interpret this question about substitutes as criticism; it is/was not anything of the sort. We are just worried that we have a full team and popped the question.
You have always been fair - and I think that is what makes this WPL thing work; we all know that you take all the different things into consideration and then make a wise decision. Always doing your best and we do admire your effort and thank you for all the hard work.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:13:27 AM · #147 |
Originally posted by GuGi:
Dear Scott.
I do hope you do not interpret this question about substitutes as criticism; it is/was not anything of the sort. We are just worried that we have a full team and popped the question.
You have always been fair - and I think that is what makes this WPL thing work; we all know that you take all the different things into consideration and then make a wise decision. Always doing your best and we do admire your effort and thank you for all the hard work. |
No problem the question that was put forth was ok and I have no problems with anyone asking. Hey that's the only way to find out. I respect any input and thank everyone that participate in the WPL.
BTW, tonights member challenge will not be updated till Monday morning. For some reason it is very slow going to profiles to get photographers scores tonight. I think the admins are working on a portion of the site. So I will have to finish it in the morning. I will post the mid week results then. Sorry for the delay.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:25:53 AM · #148 |
What will happen with the 20D team now that Rikki the captain and highest scorer canceled his account due to cheating.
Did he vote the others in his team higher?
Do they elect a new Captain?
I am not trying to stir up shit, but it is a question that has to be raised due to this being a competition. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:59:53 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by Bolti:
What will happen with the 20D team now that Rikki the captain and highest scorer canceled his account due to cheating. |
the handling of this would be entirely up to SDW. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:03:42 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by Bolti:
What will happen with the 20D team now that Rikki the captain and highest scorer canceled his account due to cheating.
Did he vote the others in his team higher?
Do they elect a new Captain?
I am not trying to stir up shit, but it is a question that has to be raised due to this being a competition. |
Thats a very good question and will the results also be recalculated for any and all WPL weeks he has participated in? Certainly not looking to create work for Southern but man Rikki's action have are long reaching.
MattO
|
|
