| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2012 12:51:16 PM · #151 |
It's kind of hard for me to imagine a whole team of people so obviously gaming the system to gain the advantage  JamesDowning is hypothesizing. I'd think peer pressure alone would minimize the likelihood of that. How could I hold my head up in this community if my competition scores followed that pattern? I think we're worrying too much. And even if some team DID successfully game the system, so what? In the end it's just a friendly competition with no tangible reward, let 'em have their tainted victory, WE'LL all know better, right? |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 12:55:00 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's kind of hard for me to imagine a whole team of people so obviously gaming the system to gain the advantage JamesDowning is hypothesizing. I'd think peer pressure alone would minimize the likelihood of that. How could I hold my head up in this community if my competition scores followed that pattern? I think we're worrying too much. And even if some team DID successfully game the system, so what? In the end it's just a friendly competition with no tangible reward, let 'em have their tainted victory, WE'LL all know better, right? |
I think everyone's just testing out the system to see the good, bad, and ugly. When it comes down to it, people really enjoy the competition and will want a DPL/WPL/CPL/Venserdome/whatever. We just want to make sure we understand it.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2012 01:00:30 PM · #153 |
Wow, how seriuos you are about this!
You're all trying to set the perfect rules to obtain the fairest scores for teams, as if anything depended on that! Probably each system has its flaws, why don't we just set a rule whatsoever and then start having fun?
Then if people - or teams - start figuring it out how to get the greatest advantage of the rules (even purposedly submitting very bad photos!), well, just let them have fun they way they like it, I will just try and do my best every time...
I'd go for the simplest rule: team score is the average score of its members during a certain week. The final ranking is made adding the weekly scores. A member not submitting anything one week will be counted as a 0 in making the average. After 3 zeroes, the team can "open the position" for another member to join in and replace of the repeatedly absent one.
Then if a team is made of 7-scoring-photographers and another team is made of 4-scoring-photographers... the first wins! Like in sports! Why trying to make things even with handicaps when the world does not work this way? The best wins, period. The worst team can be satisfied seeing that its average weekly score increases, maybe climbing a little bit the ranking. Why the system should allow it to beat the best team?
I ralize this may end in complicating the thread :) |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 01:06:49 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by gattamarta:
Why trying to make things even with handicaps when the world does not work this way? |
Except in sports, SOME sports, it DOES work that way :-) Amateur golf, amateur bowling, some types of yacht racing, ALL use mathematically-derived handicaps to level the playing field and give everyone a chance. The winner is the one that beats his handicap by the most. It's a time-tested form of competition. We've even done it in DP{C with Beat-Your-Own-Average competitions for individuals. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 01:12:09 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by gattamarta:
Why trying to make things even with handicaps when the world does not work this way? |
Except in sports, SOME sports, it DOES work that way :-) Amateur golf, amateur bowling, some types of yacht racing |
I was thinking of the sports you see on TV: tennis, soccer, basketball, swimming, etc.
At the Olympic games, the winner is Bolt because he's just the best. It would be strange to see someone else winning because they beated their handicap!
Just my opinion, though :) |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 01:17:39 PM · #156 |
In order to deflate my ego, the official name is:
VENSERDOME
Every time someone looks at the forum threads and whatnot, you'll see my name and remember how awesome I am.
The problem now is how to I make the math so complicated that I can reward bohemka without anyone else taking notice.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2012 01:24:13 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by gattamarta:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by gattamarta:
Why trying to make things even with handicaps when the world does not work this way? |
Except in sports, SOME sports, it DOES work that way :-) Amateur golf, amateur bowling, some types of yacht racing |
I was thinking of the sports you see on TV: tennis, soccer, basketball, swimming, etc. |
In some of those, you actually have a reverse-handicap situation, through seeding, lane assignments, etc.
FWIW, Motor racing also has numerous regulations which serve to even out any mechanical advantages, and horse races are actually called "Handicaps" because of the similar system (weight penalties) used ... |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 01:26:22 PM · #158 |
there's some cons and pros on this idea, and i m surely starting to get my own opinion together.
Alex, the ideas not complex. its basically what the dpl used to be, but made in a way so more people can be competetive and still have a shot at the win, especially if they improve.
James, i get where you're drawing that scenario because thats the first thing that came to mind. Two things swatted it. A, people generally wouldn't do that B. if they do, the tight control Venser has over the numbers can quickly reveal it, adjust it, and if it pisses off the cheaters - but there's ample evidence- sucks to be them, and the competetition goes on.
Marta, i think all Venser's doing is improving on a system that had some issues and perhaps making it his own by changing directions a bit. Its not meant to be perfect, but to help things fair up just a bit more. We're(i guess just him and the guys interested in this so far) also hoping to some degree that all people aren't complete ass-hats, but if a few are than we're covered. I read your system, but i think his works' better. The idea's not really to penalize the best photographers, but to promote the best improvers as well. If you come bck to "well that can be gamed" please read my comment to James. The way i see it, this is not an ESPN sport, its a custom competetion on a site thats got some history helping photographers improve and its taking that spirit and running with it.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2012 01:54:17 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by Devinder:
James, i get where you're drawing that scenario because thats the first thing that came to mind. Two things swatted it. A, people generally wouldn't do that B. if they do, the tight control Venser has over the numbers can quickly reveal it, adjust it, and if it pisses off the cheaters - but there's ample evidence- sucks to be them, and the competetition goes on. |
A, it could be seen as a tactic, so don't discount it.
B, Venser does not have a method of adjusting outcomes in this system. Once the math is set, it's set.
My issue is that if you're going to lose, it's better to lose by a lot. If you know you will lose a challenge, then it is better to submit pictures that will get you a 0 (and gain in handicap) than to submit pictures that would be your best effort.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 13:54:35. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 02:05:01 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
If you know you will lose a challenge, then it is better to submit pictures that will get you a 0 (and gain in handicap) than to submit pictures that would be your best effort. |
Then all the other team's members will notice that and boo you. In the end, a team obviously trying to win with this system should be disqualified for not acting in good faith. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 02:17:40 PM · #161 |
We can actually have two competitions for the price of one.
That is, once VENSERDOME results are calculated, it is trivial to calculate the non-handicapped results, and keep both VENSERDOME fans and WPL fans happy. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 02:24:51 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
My issue is that if you're going to lose, it's better to lose by a lot. If you know you will lose a challenge, then it is better to submit pictures that will get you a 0 (and gain in handicap) than to submit pictures that would be your best effort. |
I don't see how any team could know they are going to lose unless they planned to lose. If teams will stoop to that level then no system will save us.
The beauty here is that there is no longer pressure to be the best on DPC, just your personal best. Every photographer here should feel empowered that their contributions may in fact win the match that week, whether they're as good as  jagar or as bad as NiallOTuama.
Instead of pressure on teammates to score a 6.5 to help the team (or even factor in the scoring at all), they are only asked to do the best they can do. It empowers individual photographers on a week-to-week basis and also gives teams the flexibility to form without analyzing each other's abilities to see if their averages are high enough to be invited. Team collaboration goes up because more are involved, the improvement of each photographer means more over the course of the season, and every single photo helps pull on the same rope. Individuals improve and the team is rewarded for it.
There are plenty of ways to cheat in any system, but no other system proposed offers this amount of individual development in a non-exclusionary team environment. In many ways I think it embodies the unspoken values of this site. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 02:45:50 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by mitalapo:
That is, once VENSERDOME results are calculated, it is trivial to calculate the non-handicapped results, and keep both VENSERDOME fans and WPL fans happy. |
That it would be. The spreadsheets will be available for all to see, but I'm only report the results of VENSERDOME. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 02:46:02 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Instead of pressure on teammates to score a 6.5 to help the team (or even factor in the scoring at all), they are only asked to do the best they can do. It empowers individual photographers on a week-to-week basis and also gives teams the flexibility to form without analyzing each other's abilities to see if their averages are high enough to be invited. Team collaboration goes up because more are involved, the improvement of each photographer means more over the course of the season, and every single photo helps pull on the same rope. Individuals improve and the team is rewarded for it.
There are plenty of ways to cheat in any system, but no other system proposed offers this amount of individual development in a non-exclusionary team environment. In many ways I think it embodies the unspoken values of this site. |
Amen... I've never thought this site was "about" the ribbon-winners. No, I see it as "about" the striving, the desire to learn and develop. Frankly, I have only a limited interest, now, in seeing who can assemble the "strongest" team under the old system (although, assuredly, I'd play that game again if it were the only game on the board). I have a LOT more interest in seeing some sort of handicapped competition evolving, so I'm watching this with considerable interest. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 02:52:44 PM · #165 |
Things I need help with.
1 - Looking at the WPL spreadsheets, I have no clue how to make a hyperlink in Google spreadsheets open on the current tab. It always wants to open a new tab. Can't find any documentation online to suggest this can even be done, even though it was on the WPL sheets.
2 - What's the best way to make a sign up sheet? If anyone wants to help out with that, let me know. PM me or respond here.
3 - When teams are created, as per Bear_Music suggestions, creating a handicap for the first week based off of the last ten entries from individuals will be time consuming. I will not have time to script that before this takes off. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 03:13:13 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
I don't see how any team could know they are going to lose unless they planned to lose. If teams will stoop to that level then no system will save us.
The beauty here is that there is no longer pressure to be the best on DPC, just your personal best. Every photographer here should feel empowered that their contributions may in fact win the match that week, whether they're as good as jagar or as bad as NiallOTuama.
Instead of pressure on teammates to score a 6.5 to help the team (or even factor in the scoring at all), they are only asked to do the best they can do. It empowers individual photographers on a week-to-week basis and also gives teams the flexibility to form without analyzing each other's abilities to see if their averages are high enough to be invited. Team collaboration goes up because more are involved, the improvement of each photographer means more over the course of the season, and every single photo helps pull on the same rope. Individuals improve and the team is rewarded for it.
There are plenty of ways to cheat in any system, but no other system proposed offers this amount of individual development in a non-exclusionary team environment. In many ways I think it embodies the unspoken values of this site. |
I agree that the system is better than an unweighted, unhandicapped system. Venser wanted feedback on the validity of the system, so I figured I'd provide some.
Another alternative to the one I provided on the previous page is to 'deweight' the handicap by a small percentage that would devalue the handicap level by a bit. Something like a 0.50-0.75 factor makes sense in my mind - so it's not solely based upon improvement, but also some level of skill too.
As for when to 'throw' a game with the current scoring scenario, say you're up against a team with Gyban, Samantha_T, and Judi on an expert challenge. Odds are, you may lose that round. I agree that it wouldn't make complete sense, but a schemer could potentially use it to their advantage in ensuing rounds.
I'm probably overthinking this.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 15:20:26. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 03:14:16 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Venser:
3 - When teams are created, as per Bear_Music suggestions, creating a handicap for the first week based off of the last ten entries from individuals will be time consuming. I will not have time to script that before this takes off. |
If this is truly something that is wanted, have each user report their own average, and have it simply based on peer review. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 03:21:05 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Another alternative to the one I provided on the previous page is to 'deweight' the handicap by a small percentage that would devalue the handicap level by a bit. Something like a 0.50-0.75 factor makes sense in my mind - so it's not solely based upon improvement, but also some level of skill too. |
This would allow the higher ranked team to have a little leeway in terms of faltering. I'm not opposed to this, but in its first iteration, I think I'm leaning towards all or nothing. See how it plays out, and this is exactly what I would implement the second time around.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
As for when to 'throw' a game with the current scoring scenario, say you're up against a team with Gyban, Samantha_T, and Judi on an expert challenge. Odds are, you may lose that round. I agree that it wouldn't make complete sense, but a schemer could potentially use it to their advantage in ensuing rounds. |
Let's say Gyaban, Samantha_T, and Judi the previous week had all kicked ass and this week there was a challenge "Let's See How Much You Kick Ass With Photoshop". There is very little room for improvement on their part. So it would make sense as the opposing team to put in a real effort because, theoretically, this team has the potential to make real gains as opposed to the three people mentioned.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 15:30:57. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 03:36:09 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Let's say Gyaban, Samantha_T, and Judi the previous week had all kicked ass and this week there was a challenge "Let's See How Much You Kick Ass With Photoshop". There is very little room for improvement on their part. So it would make sense as the opposing team to put in a real effort because, theoretically, this team has the potential to make real gains as opposed to the three people mentioned. |
Before folks say this is unfair to the top performers, consider it as more of a self-regulating incentive to build a balanced team of varying skill levels. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 03:40:38 PM · #170 |
While you're all considering this, I highly recommend checking out this absolutely fascinating discussion of Small-Stakes Cheating ΓΆ€” audio/podcast available in about three hours.
FWIW the guest has the world's best research organization name: The Center For Advanced Hindsight |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 03:41:34 PM · #171 |
Is this global politics or the cold war or a bunch of amateur photographers having a laugh and improving, if you've got enough time and you really care that much to create voting strategies to sway the rounds then you need to get a life anyway and winning a virtual league isn't going to help with that.
Who honestly has the time to strategise and plan their voting in to the detail you guys are hypothesising about,
Can't we just have a league and get on with it, there's nothing at stake anyway who cares if there's a super team is just more motivation to try and beat them.
I see the wpl as a great learning experiences especially if you are lucky to get say Robert in your team but other than that it isn't the Cuban missile crisis. I know you boys love your geekery but there's just far to many what ifs going on....
And in reality the only ones likely to attempt to skew the voting are you lot as most don't understand it....
Do something let ppl pick, or have captains who picks, or a lottery but let's not analyse the life out of it.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 15:42:45. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 03:44:45 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
Do something let ppl pick, or have captains who picks, or a lottery but let's not analyse the life out of it. |
"There is a level of organization beyond which we will not tolerate."
--Jude Behling, Berkeley Free Clinic volunteer |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 03:53:26 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
While you're all considering this, I highly recommend checking out this absolutely fascinating discussion of Small-Stakes Cheating ΓΆ€” audio/podcast available in about three hours.
FWIW the guest has the world's best research organization name: The Center For Advanced Hindsight |
I've read all his books, they're quite good.
Just finished The Honest Truth About Dishonesty.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 15:53:38. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 03:59:49 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
Is this global politics or the cold war or a bunch of amateur photographers having a laugh and improving, if you've got enough time and you really care that much to create voting strategies to sway the rounds then you need to get a life anyway and winning a virtual league isn't going to help with that. |
Dude, it's [spoken in best monster truck rally voice] VENSERDOME!
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
Can't we just have a league and get on with it, there's nothing at stake anyway who cares if there's a super team is just more motivation to try and beat them. |
I kind of cared, so I'm proposing something a little different.
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
Do something let ppl pick, or have captains who picks, or a lottery but let's not analyse the life out of it. |
I plan on letting people choose their own teams. Free agents floating around I'll put into teams if they haven't found one by the beginning of the season.
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 16:00:25. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 04:02:37 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
While you're all considering this, I highly recommend checking out this absolutely fascinating discussion of Small-Stakes Cheating ΓΆ€” audio/podcast available in about three hours.
FWIW the guest has the world's best research organization name: The Center For Advanced Hindsight |
I've read all his books, they're quite good.
Just finished The Honest Truth About Dishonesty. |
Cool -- this was the first I'd heard of him. You should like this discussion, he packs an amazing amount of information into less than 40 minutes ... |
|
