Team changes and the NAF discussion

[soyelpera]

[The following posts were split from the Underworld Change? thread as they were off-topic from the OP, but still important. - Darkson]

It definitely is sad days, not really convinced with the new team, but particularly in sorrow with what they did to the underworld roster, specially with the quite clear fact that they decided the changes in connection with the existent sprue, is as ridiculous as reducing orc teams to just having 2 BOB and 2 Blitzers just because it is what there comes with the basic box. Underworld wasn't an OP team at all, and definitely fun to play imo, and it feels like they have tainted it for a terrible reason. I have seen it has already been updated in a few places (like fumbbl) meaning that these changes may be here to stay.

I know NAF wait untill annual review to include all the new rules, but will they ask the members just like they did with Khorne and Bretts back in the day? If most of the members are happy with the updates I would at least feel it is fair enough, but don't really like to see GW making changes and us having to accept them without having a say

[viyullas]

It definitely is sad days, not really convinced with the new team, but particularly in sorrow with what they did to the underworld roster, specially with the quite clear fact that they decided the changes in connection with the existent sprue, is as ridiculous as reducing orc teams to just having 2 BOB and 2 Blitzers just because it is what there comes with the basic box. Underworld wasn't an OP team at all, and definitely fun to play imo, and it feels like they have tainted it for a terrible reason. I have seen it has already been updated in a few places (like fumbbl) meaning that these changes may be here to stay.

I know NAF wait untill annual review to include all the new rules, but will they ask the members just like they did with Khorne and Bretts back in the day? If most of the members are happy with the updates I would at least feel it is fair enough, but don't really like to see GW making changes and us having to accept them without having a say

Did they ask last time? So.... the team is already in the database....

[Purplegoo]

If you mean OWA - yes, the team is in the NAF database. This is because our policy since the introduction of the Annual Review is to allow TOs to include new-to-BB2016 items if they'd like until we get to formally including or excluding them for NAF tournaments. We can never please all of the people; I'm sure if we didn't put OWA into the database until the (currently) hypothetical event they were formally included, I'd be fielding unhappy comments from people on the other side of the fence, desperate to use them.

On the referendum question soyelpera asked above, my feeling is that the Annual Review is democratic, in that participating staff members are asked to reflect the views of their regional communities. We advertise the AR widely, it is difficult to miss it's happening and feed back to your representative(s). I don't think opening the 10 or so topics we usually debate (both GW-based and not) to the whole membership would be an efficient way of doing it, indeed, we'd probably just end up with a confusing and loud argument between the most vociferous posters. Having that global staff filter works really well and gives us a fair reflection of community opinions, without 1000 angry posts to evaluate.

We did use the referendum system for DoK and Brets. I would argue (because it was before my time) this was because these were new, unofficial races and it's a very big deal to include non-Blood Bowl items for the first and (to date, to my knowledge) only time in NAF history (I appreciate that the video games are viewed as pseudo-official by many and not by others - it's a grey area). I don't feel that any of the roster changes GW have made are at that scale of decision; the democracy of electing a committee to govern the NAF and the AR process to take the temperature of the community is enough to cover them without holding lengthy referendum processes every time GW release a Spike! - probably undermining these processes and over-simplifying issues to a binary poll. OWA, for me, fall into this same category. Unlike DoK and Brets, whether or not we like them, they are official Blood Bowl items to be considered in the way we deal with other official Blood Bowl items.

I know that the Underworld roster change has raised eyebrows. I know some are against the inclusion of OWA, presumably because of the source of the roster. We will deal with all of this in the AR, and not everyone will agree with the outcomes, either way. That's just life, I'm afraid.

[Loki]

We definitely need a 'Like' button

[lunchmoney]

We definitely need a 'Like' button

Plus 1.
(I know how to add one to this archaic forum software, but only DoubleSkulls can do it )

[Wifflebat]

I must admit that, while I have no real dog in the fight (and I hope it's just metaphorical, and that this doesn't become as contentious as, say the Khorne-Bret wars, which I hope we can all agree, did not result in the end of the world), I wish that it weren't as problematic as it probably is to grandfather in the old Underworld and allow coaches to choose between the rosters.

I wish GW had rewritten the team so that you could include the Blitzer or the Gutter Runner Maybe, some interesting choices could result from making choices like that a part of other teams' makeups... Khemri could have a slightly improved Blitzer instead of a Tomb Guardian; Ogres could take a regular Ogre instead of the Runt Punter; Dwarves could take a chainsaw instead of a Trollslayer... I haven't thought any of these through, rules-wise, but why not something like it?

[plasmoid]

I think it would take a truly broken/OP roster for the NAF not to approve them for tournament play.
GW are still the makers of the game, and I can't see what the NAF could possibly gain from challenging that.
OWA and new-UW are going to be tournament legal, surely.

[soyelpera]

If you mean OWA - yes, the team is in the NAF database. This is because our policy since the introduction of the Annual Review is to allow TOs to include new-to-BB2016 items if they'd like until we get to formally including or excluding them for NAF tournaments. We can never please all of the people; I'm sure if we didn't put OWA into the database until the (currently) hypothetical event they were formally included, I'd be fielding unhappy comments from people on the other side of the fence, desperate to use them.

On the referendum question soyelpera asked above, my feeling is that the Annual Review is democratic, in that participating staff members are asked to reflect the views of their regional communities. We advertise the AR widely, it is difficult to miss it's happening and feed back to your representative(s). I don't think opening the 10 or so topics we usually debate (both GW-based and not) to the whole membership would be an efficient way of doing it, indeed, we'd probably just end up with a confusing and loud argument between the most vociferous posters. Having that global staff filter works really well and gives us a fair reflection of community opinions, without 1000 angry posts to evaluate.

We did use the referendum system for DoK and Brets. I would argue (because it was before my time) this was because these were new, unofficial races and it's a very big deal to include non-Blood Bowl items for the first and (to date, to my knowledge) only time in NAF history (I appreciate that the video games are viewed as pseudo-official by many and not by others - it's a grey area). I don't feel that any of the roster changes GW have made are at that scale of decision; the democracy of electing a committee to govern the NAF and the AR process to take the temperature of the community is enough to cover them without holding lengthy referendum processes every time GW release a Spike! - probably undermining these processes and over-simplifying issues to a binary poll. OWA, for me, fall into this same category. Unlike DoK and Brets, whether or not we like them, they are official Blood Bowl items to be considered in the way we deal with other official Blood Bowl items.

I know that the Underworld roster change has raised eyebrows. I know some are against the inclusion of OWA, presumably because of the source of the roster. We will deal with all of this in the AR, and not everyone will agree with the outcomes, either way. That's just life, I'm afraid.

I agree that having a big debate where everyone was just arguing wouldn't be any kind of help, and obviously trying to arrange a way of voting every time a Spike magazine is released would just be too much work. I am not saying the process implied on the AR isn't democratic, but have to admit I thought the idea of proposing a vote back in the day seemed just great if the changes are big enough, couldn't say if that should happen once a year or once every four years or just when the amount of new rules seem big enough to try and see what the community would go for.

I can see that there is a difference between incorporating totally new teams like Khorne and Brets were and just accepting something GW have included in the new rules, but will there be then a concrete criteria on whether when there could be a vote from the members? will there ever be a new "referendum" for all the changes and incorporation at some point? Will the votes just affect team that are not coming from GW?

Again I am pretty sure that the inclusion of OWA in NAF database would make some people mad and not including it would pretty much make some other complain, and as said before even if there is no further votes for this new team or the modification on the existing UW team in the near future, is there any chance we will have any kind of votes in this kind of decision ever? if yes in which kind of situations? please note this isn't motivated by my like/dislike of the proposed changes (to be honest, not that it matters, I would vote for OWA to be included even though I don't think I would use it a lot) just because I strongly think the vote made back in the day for those 2 new team was a great decision for its democratic meaning, no matter what the outcome is as it would be what the community wants

[Purplegoo]

I think your appetite for referendums is much greater than mine. I personally don't see a world where we stop everything four, eight, x years into BB2016 and have a referendum on 'all in or all out', or a menu of votes, or anything like that. For me, we should lean on our existing democratic processes to govern how we navigate choppy but not earth-shattering times, which is how I'd classify the times in which we find ourselves, BB-wise.

If / when should / would we use the referendum again? I guess if BB2-BBx introduce a new, non-official BB race again, that would have precedent. Otherwise, I think if we tried to take toys away from people, that would be a tricky thing to navigate without a membership-wide poll. For instance, FUMBBL are talking about removing Slann as they aren't in BB2016. I wouldn't want the NAF to do that, I think their 'recommended' status is perfect, but a hypothetical future committee wanting to take Slann away would very likely need to do so via referendum, in my view. Apologies in advance for this, but I need to say it in case: Do not take this example answer to a hypothetical question as a sign the end is nigh for Slann. I love froggy goodness, I think we have their status exactly right, no-one (NO-ONE) is talking about removing them. Sorry, but you know. I have to do that stuff, or there will be letters, as they say.

If you don't like this answer, you of course have democracy to fall back upon. We have a committee of six, each of which you can directly or indirectly select or stand to become. People are commonly mistaken and think that as TD, I have complete sway over all of this stuff. The truth is that I may be the most opinionated and keen person on that committee to talk about the Annual Review, or whatever, but I can easily be outvoted. If 'all referendum, all the time' is the community's preferred way of dealing with this stuff, it doesn't take that long to install enough people on the committee to make it so.

[soyelpera]

I think your appetite for referendums is much greater than mine. I personally don't see a world where we stop everything four, eight, x years into BB2016 and have a referendum on 'all in or all out', or a menu of votes, or anything like that. For me, we should lean on our existing democratic processes to govern how we navigate choppy but not earth-shattering times, which is how I'd classify the times in which we find ourselves, BB-wise.

If / when should / would we use the referendum again? I guess if BB2-BBx introduce a new, non-official BB race again, that would have precedent. Otherwise, I think if we tried to take toys away from people, that would be a tricky thing to navigate without a membership-wide poll. For instance, FUMBBL are talking about removing Slann as they aren't in BB2016. I wouldn't want the NAF to do that, I think their 'recommended' status is perfect, but a hypothetical future committee wanting to take Slann away would very likely need to do so via referendum, in my view. Apologies in advance for this, but I need to say it in case: Do not take this example answer to a hypothetical question as a sign the end is nigh for Slann. I love froggy goodness, I think we have their status exactly right, no-one (NO-ONE) is talking about removing them. Sorry, but you know. I have to do that stuff, or there will be letters, as they say.

If you don't like this answer, you of course have democracy to fall back upon. We have a committee of six, each of which you can directly or indirectly select or stand to become. People are commonly mistaken and think that as TD, I have complete sway over all of this stuff. The truth is that I may be the most opinionated and keen person on that committee to talk about the Annual Review, or whatever, but I can easily be outvoted. If 'all referendum, all the time' is the community's preferred way of dealing with this stuff, it doesn't take that long to install enough people on the committee to make it so.

First of all thanks for you reply, I really appreciate all the time and effort you all dedicate to this game. I would like to clarify, like I said previously, that I am not accusing the AR or committee decisions of not to being democratic enough, I was just praising the DoK & Brets referendum, thought there was no better way to show the community opinion on an important matter.

I like the idea of letting TO decide what they want to include in their events, and trying to offer them the widest range of possibilities until there is a solid decision is the best option imo. Sad to hear about the possible slann removal, just like with DoK or OWA it isn't a race I am thinking of using in the short run, but still disappointed with the idea of seeing them disappear, and I think that precisely is in this kind of situations were a referendum comes handy, whatever the outcome is it will be fair, even if it doesn't suit my taste.

Have to admit that perhaps my appetite for referendums is way to big but I am perfectly aware they are not for every single occasion, glad to hear they are being considered for future events and was just curious in whether there was a criteria for which type of situations they will be called and whether this precise matter was going to be one of them. Please bear in mind I am not criticizing it, was an honest question on how the NAF was going to proceed in this particular case coming from my lack of knowledge regarding the AR in general

[Purplegoo]

You're welcome, soyelpera, and I didn't take it as criticism or in the wrong way - just as good, spirited discussion. So all good.

On FUMBBL / Slann - I hope I'm wrong and that I've misinterpreted the jungle drums over there. So far as I know, there has been no formal announcement. It would be very consistent with their relentless progression to as close to the current rules as possible without interpretation or wiggle room for Slann to get the chop. I'm usually all for the policy in general, although it would appear I've found something to not like about it now.

To remind, for NAF policy, please see bold text. If we had super duper bold, I'd use that!

[ugrosh]

I think it would take a truly broken/OP roster for the NAF not to approve them for tournament play.
GW are still the makers of the game, and I can't see what the NAF could possibly gain from challenging that.
OWA and new-UW are going to be tournament legal, surely.

I dont know about Underworld and even i dont care. But i hope OWA get aproved, besides the fuss about is the sprue that GW sells, isnt so OP team to not be included. Ive played at Fumbbl and unlike others i found a fun team to play, altough i couldnt do the one turne td, because the 2 times i could it failed both rolls the throw team mate and the land of the halfling.
Not the concern of nobody but ive ended in very bad terms with the spanish comunity, are very vocal about insignificant things; not saying that UW changes is an insignificant thing; but in very good terms with the southamerican growing comunity tough i had a litle bad experience in a match of the first NAF tournament held in Argentina, but that players never played again.

[viyullas]

If you mean OWA - yes, the team is in the NAF database. This is because our policy since the introduction of the Annual Review is to allow TOs to include new-to-BB2016 items if they'd like until we get to formally including or excluding them for NAF tournaments. We can never please all of the people; I'm sure if we didn't put OWA into the database until the (currently) hypothetical event they were formally included, I'd be fielding unhappy comments from people on the other side of the fence, desperate to use them.

On the referendum question soyelpera asked above, my feeling is that the Annual Review is democratic, in that participating staff members are asked to reflect the views of their regional communities. We advertise the AR widely, it is difficult to miss it's happening and feed back to your representative(s). I don't think opening the 10 or so topics we usually debate (both GW-based and not) to the whole membership would be an efficient way of doing it, indeed, we'd probably just end up with a confusing and loud argument between the most vociferous posters. Having that global staff filter works really well and gives us a fair reflection of community opinions, without 1000 angry posts to evaluate.

We did use the referendum system for DoK and Brets. I would argue (because it was before my time) this was because these were new, unofficial races and it's a very big deal to include non-Blood Bowl items for the first and (to date, to my knowledge) only time in NAF history (I appreciate that the video games are viewed as pseudo-official by many and not by others - it's a grey area). I don't feel that any of the roster changes GW have made are at that scale of decision; the democracy of electing a committee to govern the NAF and the AR process to take the temperature of the community is enough to cover them without holding lengthy referendum processes every time GW release a Spike! - probably undermining these processes and over-simplifying issues to a binary poll. OWA, for me, fall into this same category. Unlike DoK and Brets, whether or not we like them, they are official Blood Bowl items to be considered in the way we deal with other official Blood Bowl items.

I know that the Underworld roster change has raised eyebrows. I know some are against the inclusion of OWA, presumably because of the source of the roster. We will deal with all of this in the AR, and not everyone will agree with the outcomes, either way. That's just life, I'm afraid.

Don't worry. I don't think I will pay my NAF renovation fee any time soon, maybe never, as the NAF is not representing me and I don't need the ranking shit I don't see the point, because that's all NAF is right now... a ranking. sad. but it si what it is.

[Purplegoo]

I'm half-worried, viyullas.

By that, I mean that there is a vocal and persistent sub-set of the Spanish community that is dissatisfied with the NAF, with how the NAF (if I may summarise what I read on the internet crudely) kowtows to every GW whim (as you see it), how our service is nothing but a ranking, how we don't represent you, etc. I am 'worried' enough to continually challenge these views and debate around this subject with you; here, as I have at length on the Spanish forum, anywhere you like*, because I believe quite passionately that it isn't true, and if you run through the news items on thenaf.net or the social media feeds, the ongoing engagement project (more on this soon - see recent minutes for details!) and everything else, I believe an even-handed reviewer would find that while we aren't perfect, we're certainly more than a rankings service.

However, there are limits to my worrying. I know that we cannot make everybody happy, because that's life. I also strongly suspect that there are some members and / or former members that have views so entrenched that even when we do exactly the thing(s) they loudly campaign for, citing them as examples of how the NAF is incompetent or not representing them, they will quickly forget or ignore the progress made and complain about something else. If we were to issue a statement that we're never including another new GW rule and we'll play CRP for evermore, I suspect those that say they want that will be happy for all of about five minutes, and the noise from the rest of the membership will split our eardrums.

So. I'm worried enough to debate how we do things with you, viyullas, because I think a fair bit of the criticism is unwarranted and it is worth an amount of my time attempting to convince you of that. But I'm not so worried so that I'll go on forever or that if you don't renew your membership I'll lose any sleep. I hope you do, but we'll never please every Blood Bowler. Again, if representation is your problem, use your democratic right to get some representation. There are a lot of Spanish members and only a handful of them seem to turn out to vote. Perhaps your lack of representation is on you?

*I say 'anywhere you like', knowing of course that a section of the membership would be disgusted with us for having this debate here, and not in a Facebook thread linked to spicy Reddit memes, Tik Tok videos and You Tube! There is another section of members I'm never going to please. I'm collecting them up.

[fromherashes]

I'm half-worried, viyullas.

By that, I mean that there is a vocal and persistent sub-set of the Spanish community that is dissatisfied with the NAF, with how the NAF (if I may summarise what I read on the internet crudely) kowtows to every GW whim (as you see it), how our service is nothing but a ranking, how we don't represent you, etc. I am 'worried' enough to continually challenge these views and debate around this subject with you; here, as I have at length on the Spanish forum, anywhere you like*, because I believe quite passionately that it isn't true, and if you run through the news items on thenaf.net or the social media feeds, the ongoing engagement project (more on this soon - see recent minutes for details!) and everything else, I believe an even-handed reviewer would find that while we aren't perfect, we're certainly more than a rankings service.

However, there are limits to my worrying. I know that we cannot make everybody happy, because that's life. I also strongly suspect that there are some members and / or former members that have views so entrenched that even when we do exactly the thing(s) they loudly campaign for, citing them as examples of how the NAF is incompetent or not representing them, they will quickly forget or ignore the progress made and complain about something else. If we were to issue a statement that we're never including another new GW rule and we'll play CRP for evermore, I suspect those that say they want that will be happy for all of about five minutes, and the noise from the rest of the membership will split our eardrums.

So. I'm worried enough to debate how we do things with you, viyullas, because I think a fair bit of the criticism is unwarranted and it is worth an amount of my time attempting to convince you of that. But I'm not so worried so that I'll go on forever or that if you don't renew your membership I'll lose any sleep. I hope you do, but we'll never please every Blood Bowler. Again, if representation is your problem, use your democratic right to get some representation. There are a lot of Spanish members and only a handful of them seem to turn out to vote. Perhaps your lack of representation is on you?

*I say 'anywhere you like', knowing of course that a section of the membership would be disgusted with us for having this debate here, and not in a Facebook thread linked to spicy Reddit memes, Tik Tok videos and You Tube! There is another section of members I'm never going to please. I'm collecting them up.

Lol at “spicy Reddit memes”.

100% agree with what you’re saying here and in your previous posts.