Tell me
- Thread starter captain lust
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
crazyboy11
Baron
captain lust said:
The only two ways I can see it working are:
[*]You appoint them - possibly controversial, but I trust your judgement and don't believe for a second you would do anything to compromise the integrity of the league.
[*]You put together a list of nominations (from your own suggestions and/or people who are recommended by team reps) and each team submits a vote for the judge of each division (although can't vote or nominate anyone from their own team).
I'd agree with Crazyboy's Idea.
- It would be advisable to get a selection of nominees from each Division and that they judge the teams in their own division. After a while teams within the division get to know each other having been in contact with each other, which allows the trust, reliance and good communication between the judge and the 2 teams which are playing. This does however run the risk the judges being rather lenient on enforcing the ENL rules.
- Depending on the amount of judges, teams should have the opportunity to vote for more than 1 nominee, they cannot vote for the same person twice or 3 times.
- When voting, it cant be a favouritism or popularity contest. That is a big flaw. However, if Lust were to pick for him self, then I'm sure everyone can trust and respect his judgement and decisions.
crazyboy11
Baron
Some more speculation from everyone's favorite speculator (maybe).
I agree 100% that a judges role should be to enforce the rules and provide clarity in situations where there is some doubt. This would of course mean judges need a good knowledge of the rules and how the league operates, however a further power I would suggest is the ability to submit a case for review.
The focus of every match should be to play the game, however if there are discrepancies the judges could permit the result/outcome to be subject to review. From there we could come up with a set of "judgments" or "solutions" that could be applied accordingly.
e.g.
- Match must be replayed (or even certain rounds / maps)
- Penalty points given out for poor conduct
- Server decisions made by judges rather than team
This would give teams a "net" to fall back on if they think the circumstances of their game is unfair, and deferring the decision until after the match has been played may reduce issues if the match works out better than expected.
As such the power would permit the judge (individually) to give teams confirmation that this review will take place, regardless of the match outcome as opposed to having to submit their own report afterwards, and will encourage the match to be played rather than postponed.
Perhaps also the authority to spectate a match would be advisable.
captain lust said:
I agree 100% that a judges role should be to enforce the rules and provide clarity in situations where there is some doubt. This would of course mean judges need a good knowledge of the rules and how the league operates, however a further power I would suggest is the ability to submit a case for review.
The focus of every match should be to play the game, however if there are discrepancies the judges could permit the result/outcome to be subject to review. From there we could come up with a set of "judgments" or "solutions" that could be applied accordingly.
e.g.
- Match must be replayed (or even certain rounds / maps)
- Penalty points given out for poor conduct
- Server decisions made by judges rather than team
This would give teams a "net" to fall back on if they think the circumstances of their game is unfair, and deferring the decision until after the match has been played may reduce issues if the match works out better than expected.
As such the power would permit the judge (individually) to give teams confirmation that this review will take place, regardless of the match outcome as opposed to having to submit their own report afterwards, and will encourage the match to be played rather than postponed.
Perhaps also the authority to spectate a match would be advisable.
For Div C that's not surprising, hence the question. Since I was curious anyway I checked the day-distribution of the last cycle, showing that Friday, beside Tuesday and Wednesday (all three with 5 played matches), was indeed the day least used to play.captain lust said:
As far as the so-called "judges" are concerned, I don't think that it's necessary that they have any kind of authority regarding decisions concerning rule infringements. What I meant would be just a bunch of people who are able to explain the rules to people in their respective mother-language and in (an at least understandable) English.
The only real, although small, problems occur during the picking-sessions for Div C and due to some roster-violations (beside some people being - rightfully or not - butthurt cause of ill behaviour of the opposing team - without any rules, maybe with the exception of etiquette in general, being broken). I believe that some of those could be prevented by appointing some people who are able to explain the rules in question in a bit of a less formal way (in their respective first language - and just to clarify: I don't mean that they should translate them and be done with it but to be reachable via steam or another platform should questions arise).
Since the 22nd-IG-postponement-discussion was the only major discussion which wasn't covered by the rules in its entirety in the last circle, the newly introduced rule could also need an - maybe even mandatory - inclusion of an "event admin" (as it's called in this rule). Again I don't think that there's any authority necessary to decide if the prerequesites for a postponement are met or not - the involved questions to the team-representatives could even be standardised.
Nonetheless further enquiries (after the standardised part) could benefit from a - partly and at times; and no offence to Flust - more patient and countervailing approach.
As long as Flust doesn't want/need to delegate some more administrative roles (like roster-management) to other people, and as long as non-official servers aren't used I don't see the need for the inclusion of judges, who have more than an advisory and auxiliary function; as the last NC has showed too many of those can also lead to some problems (or at least bad blood).
Since those "event admins" wouldn't have any rule-interpreting authority per se, I also agree with crazyboy and Stuboi that it would be the easiest way to either let Flust choose who he wants to ask or ask in the different (speech) communities themselves.
Now that wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.captain lust said:
And I didn't interpret it that way. On the contrary I suggested that the original purpose of this thread was either stupid (because of one sort of possible reactions), useless (because of the possibility of no reaction) or counterproductive (because of the other sort of possible reactions) but in no possible way constructive or helpful for anyone.captain lust said:
I kinda agree with Modus on that point. I dont see why we would need judges.
Problems always occur the same way, either they are roster violations, or difficulty between teams to pick a date and server for the match.
Regarding roster violations, it is the task of a single man as Lust has the hand on the database, so I dont see why a judge would be needed. Though the rule should be softened, I cant see why a team would loose 20-0 cause they did a typo, or lined-up somebody who is a beginner in the ENL community, and who has forgotten to register.
When it comes to teams to pick dates and servers I think something must be written about where matches should be played. Indeed it sounds unfair to me that some teams will face the turkish/russian teams in Hungary because they are cool and fair in their judgement, while other play them in german servers to increase their chances of win.
Regarding the date matches are played, delays are allowed, and if no agreements can be reached (let's say after 2-3 weeks), Lust can manage it, as those cases are rare, so no need of judge neither.
The more you name judges and administrators, the more ENL will look like North Korea. The only thing where I would think the help of an event-admin is required, is for a new team entering ENL, having them "coached" by an "ENL veteran" to explain them the rules would be fine, same with teams who did a lot of administrative rule breaking.
Problems always occur the same way, either they are roster violations, or difficulty between teams to pick a date and server for the match.
Regarding roster violations, it is the task of a single man as Lust has the hand on the database, so I dont see why a judge would be needed. Though the rule should be softened, I cant see why a team would loose 20-0 cause they did a typo, or lined-up somebody who is a beginner in the ENL community, and who has forgotten to register.
When it comes to teams to pick dates and servers I think something must be written about where matches should be played. Indeed it sounds unfair to me that some teams will face the turkish/russian teams in Hungary because they are cool and fair in their judgement, while other play them in german servers to increase their chances of win.
Regarding the date matches are played, delays are allowed, and if no agreements can be reached (let's say after 2-3 weeks), Lust can manage it, as those cases are rare, so no need of judge neither.
The more you name judges and administrators, the more ENL will look like North Korea. The only thing where I would think the help of an event-admin is required, is for a new team entering ENL, having them "coached" by an "ENL veteran" to explain them the rules would be fine, same with teams who did a lot of administrative rule breaking.
Adopt a clan! 
Your analogies always suck.arsenic_vengeur said:
Some points are interesting, although I think that having more 1/2 guys checking things, clarifying doubts and helping new clans would be enough to relief some work from Lust.
With this he only needs to care about updating the rosters and check the match's scores and id's.
This helpers should be one from Turkey and one from Russia, apart from the English dude, those two are big communities and very important to the MP scene, sometimes its hard to make ourselves clear in English, so for the greater good, they should have a helper/rep.
With this he only needs to care about updating the rosters and check the match's scores and id's.
This helpers should be one from Turkey and one from Russia, apart from the English dude, those two are big communities and very important to the MP scene, sometimes its hard to make ourselves clear in English, so for the greater good, they should have a helper/rep.
Hell no, count me out.
I don't think there were ever any plans to count you in...Swordmaster said:
captain lust said:
Good that there isn't any.
These things happen, guys. You can't expect to run a league and face no problems. There is a proper punishment in place for those mistakes. As long as they don't happen a lot, everything is fine.
I couldn't find anywhere else to put this so i'll put it here.
I think the random picking needs to be changed. It can ruin the picks of those who come because another clan failed to pick. Lets take RS for example. They are likely to take a strategy of picking the clans near the top. They will do this because they want to stop them gaining points and thus gaining a bigger advantage but also because RS will gain 5 points when beating them. If RS are then auto-picked by a team below them, this will mess up their pick and mean they will only gain 3 points. Obviously this means they are unlikely to be able to gain on the likes of Inquisition.
I'm not really sure of how it can be changed however I think it's important that some kind of change is implemented. Possibly those who failed to pick could simply be set aside and drawn against each other. If there is a team left over at the end then they should simply be given a default loss. Too late for this week certainly but I think it's something worth debating.
Also I was curious as to why you chose 5 points for a victory over a higher level team, perhaps 4 would be more balanced?
I think the random picking needs to be changed. It can ruin the picks of those who come because another clan failed to pick. Lets take RS for example. They are likely to take a strategy of picking the clans near the top. They will do this because they want to stop them gaining points and thus gaining a bigger advantage but also because RS will gain 5 points when beating them. If RS are then auto-picked by a team below them, this will mess up their pick and mean they will only gain 3 points. Obviously this means they are unlikely to be able to gain on the likes of Inquisition.
I'm not really sure of how it can be changed however I think it's important that some kind of change is implemented. Possibly those who failed to pick could simply be set aside and drawn against each other. If there is a team left over at the end then they should simply be given a default loss. Too late for this week certainly but I think it's something worth debating.
Also I was curious as to why you chose 5 points for a victory over a higher level team, perhaps 4 would be more balanced?
Then wouldn't all the good teams deliberately miss their pick, so they could go up against all the teams who were too disorganised to make their pick? Enter: Vicious cycle.
I think so long as picking session attendance remains fairly high, the situation is ok. I think only one team ended up missing their pick last week, which was a bit of a nuiscance but on the whole, I actually think the system is working very well. Remember that the system has 9 weeks to place the teams in order, not 4.
I chose 5 points because I thought 4 might be a bit meaningless but 6 would be equal to two match wins, which I thought to be too much. Two wins should always be worth more than one.
Anyway, thinking about it now.... perhaps a system where only teams that lost the previous week will be "autopickable" could work. It would stop streaking teams from being held back and *typically* prevent the stronger teams from being autopicked... either way I think teams see the value in picking now and I have a feeling we won't see any autopicks today.
As for judges/abassadors... hoping to get the ball rolling on that front, over the weekend.
I think so long as picking session attendance remains fairly high, the situation is ok. I think only one team ended up missing their pick last week, which was a bit of a nuiscance but on the whole, I actually think the system is working very well. Remember that the system has 9 weeks to place the teams in order, not 4.
I chose 5 points because I thought 4 might be a bit meaningless but 6 would be equal to two match wins, which I thought to be too much. Two wins should always be worth more than one.
Anyway, thinking about it now.... perhaps a system where only teams that lost the previous week will be "autopickable" could work. It would stop streaking teams from being held back and *typically* prevent the stronger teams from being autopicked... either way I think teams see the value in picking now and I have a feeling we won't see any autopicks today.
As for judges/abassadors... hoping to get the ball rolling on that front, over the weekend.
You're right that could be a problem, I just thought the randomness could end up effecting those who did turn up to their pick. Sounds like a decent workaround to me.
Another problem I was wondering about was how you were likely to deal with the drop-out situation (Einherjar, KoS and Sarrdak). How are those gaps likely to be filled next cycle? I think its important to decide sooner rather than later so that no teams feel hard done by at the end of the season.
(edit) Would just like to add that i've really enjoyed the division C system so far. Picking day is always fun!
Another problem I was wondering about was how you were likely to deal with the drop-out situation (Einherjar, KoS and Sarrdak). How are those gaps likely to be filled next cycle? I think its important to decide sooner rather than later so that no teams feel hard done by at the end of the season.
(edit) Would just like to add that i've really enjoyed the division C system so far. Picking day is always fun!
Deacon, I think the drop outs wouldn't be too much of a problem like it was last cycle (however still a shame they happen).
Think of Division C as the Division B overflow...
If no other teams join next cycle, then there will simply be less teams next cycle in Division C, and the top 4 this cycle will still get promoted to either Division A or B.
That's how I see it going.
Think of Division C as the Division B overflow...
If no other teams join next cycle, then there will simply be less teams next cycle in Division C, and the top 4 this cycle will still get promoted to either Division A or B.
That's how I see it going.
