Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zai]

Since everyone and their mother's cousin's mistress agree on me

Ohoho. Don't be so sure of that.

[dakarian]

I already asked her.  She agreed.  Now your Mother's Cousin didn't approve but that's why I didn't mention him.

[Zai]

I already asked her.  She agreed.  Now your Mother's Cousin didn't approve but that's why I didn't mention him.

You said everyone, not just their mother's cousin's mistress~

[webadict]

Well, now that I've finally caught up and read through this mess, I can for sure agree on such a concept as the Elite Activity Mafia. I suppose each Night, we'd be able to recruit someone to our ranks, if they are under strict guidelines. I think if we come across a player and we all agree, we'll institute some watching policies to see how well they play during a period, and we'll also need to institute an exclusion policy.

I'll also nominate Pandarsenic, dakarian, Alexhans, Vector, and CobaltKobold.

For now...

[Zai]

...This is going to make the sub-forum seem even more elitist than it already does.

[Pandarsenic]

Nominating only those I consider to be absolute "must-haves" to form our first wave of immigrants who aren't already in our Starting Three group:

ToonyMan
CobaltKobold
Apostolic Nihilist
Alexhans
Chaoticjosh
Mephansteras

[Pandarsenic]

...This is going to make the sub-forum seem even more elitist than it already does.

If people want to get S ranks, they can earn them. My goal is to be able to run a BYOR of 13 people (plus me hosting) who are all S-ranks.

[webadict]

...This is going to make the sub-forum seem even more elitist than it already does.

If people want to get S ranks, they can earn them. My goal is to be able to run a BYOR of 13 people (plus me hosting) who are all S-ranks.

...It's so... beautiful!

[Mr.Person]

I don't see the benefits of giving out rankings for pure attendance. Wouldn't this just be easier to keep track of prods, flakes, replacements, total games played, and clean games played and keep a big list? If a guy flaked in the past, instead of just seeing a number that tells you very little, you see, let's just say, 20 games clean, 2 prods (Paranormal 3, Paranormal 3), 1 flake (Paranormal 3), 1 unclean game (Paranormal 3).

I mean come on, who really gives a flying fuck about karma and an S-rank? The whole point was to keep track of who flaked, so why don't we just do that?

[webadict]

I don't see the benefits of giving out rankings for pure attendance. Wouldn't this just be easier to keep track of prods, flakes, replacements, total games played, and clean games played and keep a big list? If a guy flaked in the past, instead of just seeing a number that tells you very little, you see, let's just say, 20 games clean, 2 prods (Paranormal 3, Paranormal 3), 1 flake (Paranormal 3), 1 unclean game (Paranormal 3).

I mean come on, who really gives a flying fuck about karma and an S-rank? The whole point was to keep track of who flaked, so why don't we just do that?

Because we've yet to make too many Karma-requisite games, mostly because we're afraid that such games have the aura of exclusion, which they ought to, in order to stop people from lurking.

[Cheeetar]

I'll nom Apostolic Nihilist, Leafsnail and ToonyMan.

[dakarian]

Something tells me I'm going to be very happy to have more of a democratic mindset than some of the others .

i.e. I'm seriously thinking that an S rank can't be a player nominator for someone (they can Nom as a host though).  Otherwise, you really do get some superelite that nominates who they want to bring in.

And, of course, the simple matter is that hosts don't have to limit by rank.  I'm personally more eager over the other ranks.  I think an B rank limit would be enough to ensure a good game.  Beginner's, of course, is for N ranks, and any game that's not Hammer based or with a very limited kill count will be ok with any rank other than F (which is a special rank in itself and I'm planning to never really have to use).  Lastly, resets will make sure no one is permanently scarred. 


For now, just to keep the rhythm I set up going:

Dakarian (Fully Nominated: Leafsnail, CobaltKobold, Org)
Webadict (Fully Nominated: Leafnsnail, CobaltKobold, Dakarian)
Alexhans  (Fully Nominated: Leafsnail, CobaltKobold, Dakarian)
Pandarsenic (Fully Nominated: CobaltKobold, Dakarian, Org)
CobaltKobold (Fully Nominated: Toonyman, Dakarian, Apostolic Nihilist)
Apostolic Nihilist (Fully Nominated: CobaltKobold, Dakarian, ToonyMan)
JoshuaFH (Fully Nominated: CobaltKobold, Zai, ToonyMan)
Leafsnail (Fully Nominated: Apostolic Nihilist, Dakarian, ToonyMan)
Vector (Fully Nominated: CobaltKobold, Apostolic Nihilist, ToonyMan)
Free Beer (Fully Nominated: CobaltKobold, ToonyMan, Zai)
ToonyMan (Fully Nominated: Dakarian, CobaltKobold, Pandarsenic)
Mephansteras (Fully Nominated: Leafsnail, ToonyMan, Org)
Inaluct (2 Noms: Org, Toonyman)

Btw, if you guys haven't noticed, for all of the 'mass' of names you keep throwing, you keep noming the same people.  I haven't had to add anyone in a while.

Thus the point of my experiment.  I asked everyone for noms like this because I expected that if I just went chaotic and just asked for names a batch of the same group of people would show up.  It worked . 

With that, though, I believe we're done.  Web, Pandar, and I will make the first three and we'll vote on the rest of the list.  There was also consideration of having an Honorary Member position given for mods like Meph, who don't play active enough but are excellent hosts.  They don't get the rank but they do get the vote since, as a host, he has a good feel on how the players work.

I plan to start the new system in the new year, so I guess we have until that time to finish arguing/voting/whatever.


Meanwhile, I want some kind of agreement on what EXACTLY constitutes the other ranks.  Unlike S, this WILL be purely objective: X number of prods = SuchandSuch Rank sort of thing.  The only debate should be on how a host handles prods and replacements, but other than that, it should be formulaic. 

F rank, btw, is not just for flaking (that's D rank).  A person that suddenly disappeared from 3 games doesn't tend to come back anyway (they disappear because they simply stopped playing forever).  F rank is for people who join, flake, join flake, join flake, repeat over and over.  I've never seen a person do it (either they flake once and that's it or they flake then never return) and don't plan on ever seeing it.  As such, I'm expecting almost everyone in A or B rank and a few in C or D.

Also, if it was missed, A rank won't have the 'subbed in for a game' requirement.  Instead, there will be a A+ rank for that. 

[dakarian]

I don't see the benefits of giving out rankings for pure attendance. Wouldn't this just be easier to keep track of prods, flakes, replacements, total games played, and clean games played and keep a big list? If a guy flaked in the past, instead of just seeing a number that tells you very little, you see, let's just say, 20 games clean, 2 prods (Paranormal 3, Paranormal 3), 1 flake (Paranormal 3), 1 unclean game (Paranormal 3).

I mean come on, who really gives a flying fuck about karma and an S-rank? The whole point was to keep track of who flaked, so why don't we just do that?

1. It's a MESS to keep up with the current system, especially if I have to do it for long term.  I still don't have a good half of the games that played. 

2. It's harder to read raw numbers, which makes it harder for hosts to use.  Yes, a person flaked in a game over a year old.  How does that translate to now?  Is there really a difference between someone who's played 10 games pure and clean and someone who's played 20?  Is someone who played 20 and flaked in 2 different from someone who played in 10?

Rank will make it easy for people to read.  Oh, Leaf is an A+ while Org is a B and Nuke is a D.  Boom, done.

Why the S rank?  A Rankers can still lurk by just throwing one post statements per day, just barely keeping up.  Note that until the very end of Day 3, Rash would be a Rank A in BYOR:Pandar. 

I want Rank A-F to be Objective, and there's no real way to Objectively show the difference between 'active enough to play' and 'holds the game up'.  There's no 'post count' number and no objective way to determine content.  Still, look at that list up there.  You think those are the only players around that don't flake?  No.  However, the same names show up each time.  Only Inault failed to get 3 Noms and that's because many of us weren't around to see him.  We already know there's a 'special group' of players.  We might as well put SOME means to standardize it.


Why is S rank getting so much publicity?  The other ranks are built on formula.  S has an element that allows for Opinion, and that brings what you have here. 

[Vector]

First off, I feel like I'm playing Monster Rancher.

Then, I feel like the rankings should be fairly intuitive, but that we may need more degrees.  Maybe add more plusses and minuses, whatever.  I'm remembering my grades in high school and thinking about those extra letter doohickeys that show up next to the general grades--does badly on tests, uncooperative wastrel, etc.  I think we should have a general ranking for each player, with perhaps a couple of pertinent notes--has requested replacement, frequently replaces, person who tends to need prods and then is extremely active.

That's the thing: there's a difference between someone who is an extremely active player, but then has to ask for a replacement from time to time (joined a game a couple of months ago which runs into a planned vacation, for example) and the standard person who wants replacement.  I feel like there should be more distinction here, somehow, than is currently available... though I'm not really sure how it should be induced.

Some part of me wants these rankings to be extremely delicate and fine-tuned; some other part feels like we're trying to create an "objective" system so that we won't feel guilty about excluding people from games.  I'm certain that we'll become accustomed to all this at some point, but this growing period seems to be quite awkward.

Anyway, my hope is that we'll have this entire mess figured out by 2010, though it really seems too fuzzy at this point.


As far as the ranking criteria themselves go:

S rank : Not just a regular player but an active one, to the point where the game suffers when they die.  Aka. Someone Alex would want to play with

Fair enough.  I feel that the head honchos should set up a quicktopic to argue amongst themselves about this stuff, given that PMs are awkward and starting a thread on Bay12 would be exceedingly weird.

A rank : Extraordinary 1 prod MAX per quarter, no more than 1 per game.  No substitution requests.  Has substituted in for someone else in at least 2 games

I'm going to second the removal of substitution requirements on this one, given that they seem rather ridiculous.  However, doesn't the existence of one prod max per quarter mean that they can't have more than one in a given game (provided that the game doesn't run from one quarter to another)?

B rank : Regular activity, has requested substitutions (but no forced subs), Most players fall here or in A.  Prods under 3 per quarter, 1 per game.

This certainly seems fair, though I'm starting to feel like we're missing something, like the consequences of rule-breaking.  That's the only thing from the karma system that seems to have gone completely unaddressed, so I'm starting to feel like we need notes about modding, ICing, rule-breaking, game-balancing.  The current system seems somewhat too clumsy to me, and I'd like to change it around a bit until we get more information about the players in there.

I also find it vaguely hilarious that I'd be B- or C-rated under the current system, but am up for S consideration.  Given the fact that I'm going to have to ask for temporary (10-day) replacement in something like 3 games thanks to a vacation that's been planned for half a year, and I joined all my current games with the intent to keep enough buffer between their ending and my absence... well, it seems even more ridiculous, since I'd become a D-rank right there.  Something seems broken about the current system, when such a situation is possible.

C rank : Lurkers either needing prods or simply lurking semi-regularly.  However, they play to the end, if they sometimes need to be pushed.  Prods, +3 per quarter or 2+ per game.  No forced substitutions.

There's a really large gap between B and C.  I feel like we need to fine-tune this more, so that C is D, D becomes E, and we retain F as a special extremely low rank.  Add another rank C, for people who are more on the line between flakey and reliable; there is a gigantic difference between a player who needs one prod and a player who needs multiple prods per game.  The former can be a very strong player, while the latter is generally not.

I also feel almost as though those who receive D, and E ranks should feel as though they are failing, with C sitting at "on the edge of failure."  If we're going to use a grading system, we might as well fully exploit it.  Thus I suggest more even gradations, so that we end up having a more intuitive system.

D rank : May drop from your game unexpectedly.  Unreliable.  +2 substitutions or 1 forced substitution.

F rank : Specialized Fail rank.  Similar to S, requires special consideration to enter this rank.

N rank : Newbie rank.  Under 5 games.  No forced substitutions.

Sensible.

You're forgetting me!

And you take the internet WAY too seriously.

Get thee to BMVII and learn to play.  I may take things too seriously, but sometimes you need a somber person to make sure that ye olde silly ruses may continue.


@Leafsnail: If you ever ran your Bay12-2, I'd be interested.  I almost joined the last one, but ended up being too swamped to give it a try.

[Org]

I was VERY Active Paranormal 12.