Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

News and announcements from the worldwide Blood Bowl players' association

Moderator: TFF Mods

Post Reply
User avatar
sann0638
Kommissar Enthusiasmoff
Posts: 6609
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:24 am
Location: Swindon, England

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by sann0638 »

Vanguard wrote: For the sake of the original thread and clarity, it is probably worth moving this to a dedicated CRP+ Rules Discussion thread. There's a lot of cross-discussion in the BB2 thread which should be wrapped up in here too.
This. And the Bretonnians thread.

Reason: ''
NAF Ex-President
Founder of SAWBBL, Swindon and Wiltshire's BB League - find us on Facebook and Discord
NAF Data wrangler
User avatar
Vanguard
Super Star
Super Star
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:27 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by Vanguard »

GalakStarscraper wrote:As for the trolling ... that comes with the territory of being the guy shown at the head of changing the rules. At least it hasn't reached the point where someone hoping he be murdered by eaten alive by pigs which is one memorable comment during the Vault days.
It really shouldn't tho' and I'm sorry you had to suffer that.

Reason: ''
Image
Image
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by dode74 »

Vanguard wrote:I'd have to go back through various threads to confirm, but I'm fairly sure there was general agreement that something in the order of tens of thousands of data points were required. Maybe I've picked that up wrongly.
That's what he incorrectly thought. You don't need tens of thousands at all.
I've never had an issue with the name nor felt it was in anyway confusing or mis-representing itself. However, he has made changes to his site and how he refers to the rules at the request of others. Unless you're pushing for additional changes (and that's the broader you rather than Dode specifically) it's a resolved issue.
I don't know that it is. There are still a lot of people labouring under the misapprehension that there is some sort of official validity to CRP+. Those misapprehensions are plasmoid's responsibility, as we have already agreed. He needs to be utterly explicit and quite possibly proactive. Co-opting the NAF into spreading the word regarding this would work as a means of getting that across and a means of spreading his house rules, for example. It's not cutting just one way.

Reason: ''
koadah
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:26 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by koadah »

dode74 wrote:I don't know that it is. There are still a lot of people labouring under the misapprehension that there is some sort of official validity to CRP+. Those misapprehensions are plasmoid's responsibility, as we have already agreed. He needs to be utterly explicit and quite possibly proactive. Co-opting the NAF into spreading the word regarding this would work as a means of getting that across and a means of spreading his house rules, for example. It's not cutting just one way.
Oh good grief. If people really care they'll find out soon enough.

If anyone else wants to push their rules then go ahead. In the mean time long live the CRP+!

Reason: ''
plasmoid
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5334
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by plasmoid »

Right - working on the back log here:
Mike,
I'm glad to that Vanguard popped in to underscore my point: That the website were clearly explains what I do and do not use the data for. So you're butchering the straw man when you say people are so stupid to think that I used any data for anything.

I use data to figure out which teams are unbalanced (my explicit definition) under CRP rules. As I explicitly state on the site.
I do not use data to figure out which exact shape these team specific changes should then have. Which I also explicitly state.
You're welcome to put in the work and make better changes. That would be awesome.
But this is what I'm prepared to do for now. And there's no secrecy about it.
I'm presuming they don't understand statistics enough to understand why they're relevant
I have no way of divining what it is you specifically think I don't understand. I've picked up some basics since we first met, and I stick to that. You're right I'm not a statistician.
But the last time I got confused, it was because you ranted that people (only name-dropping me) don't use inferential data. So I mistakenly assumed that you actually knew what you were talking about and had looked at the website - so I did half a rewrite only to have Dode tell me that the stats I do use are in fact inferential. Thanks by the way.

So I do - at the basic level - understand mean and CI, and how to calculate them. And I did.
You didn't go back, do analyses, and then build your rules around what the numbers showed.
I did actually do the analyses, and both removed stuff that was unsupported by the data, and added stuff supported by data, that I had not seen before. So yes, I did make stringent changes as to which teams were nerfed/buffed. But as explicitly stated, I did not use the data to decide on the specific shape of said nerf/buff.
You went back and looked for numbers that would help support what you'd already decided was right.
No.

Which leads my back to the implication that I sinisterly use some data in order to mislead people to think that I'm actually using other data for other things.
Trip Down memory lane, shall we?

I had my original rules, based on mainly discussion and unscientifically eyeballing some stats.
I was quite happy with those rules.
But than you above all others (but also Shteve0 and Dode) felt like I was pretending to have proper scientific backing, and demanded that I started working with the existing piles of data that was available.
And so I did. I analysed to the best of my ability the existing CRP data that you spoke of. And I made changes to my rules accordingly. And presented that on the website.

So now you and Dode claim that this use of CRP data, which you specifically asked my to do, is a sinister ruse to mislead people into thinking that I'm actually using CRP+ data to sell my snake oil. Even though you had me do it, and even though I explicitly spell it out on the website.
That. Is. Just. So. Rich.
Sigh.

In fact, very close to the top of the page on my site that presents my roster changes it states that:
"To do this, I’m using inferential statistics to examine which teams have been overperforming or underperforming under CRP rules. For further details read on here [Link]. It is worth noting, that I’m not using the same definition of the tiers as the BBRC – most notably I use 30-40 point TV bands rather than lifetime performance, I don’t include mirror matches, I raise the bottom of tier 1 and I move up tier 2 and 3. The result is a narrower definition of the tiers which in turn leads to changes to teams that do not seem imbalanced under the BBRC’s definition of balance.

The results is changes to 10 of the 24 official rosters indicated by the inferential data.
As for the particular changes made, they were based on online polls, personal preference and feedback from players. They were not based on match-level statistics, and I do not pretend that these are the only ways that these rosters could have been fixed. In short, the changes are intended to nerf or buff particular teams, but whether they work as intended remains to be seen."

So, I think it is very clear.
And I object to the idea that you or Dode get to tell me what to do with my time.

Cheers
Martin

(PS: Edited a few confusing spelling errors)

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by dode74 »

I object to the idea that you or Dode get to tell me what to do with my time.
Where has this been done?

Reason: ''
plasmoid
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5334
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by plasmoid »

When you tell me that in order to not be a sinister evil deceptive person, I must gather up PCRP+ data, analyse it, rewrite the website to present it, and presumably change the rules (and test those) if anything doesn't add up.
I can also see that you want me to work with the NAF to atone for my wicked ways.
Quite the list.

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
plasmoid
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5334
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 8:55 am
Location: Copenhagen
Contact:

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by plasmoid »

Hi Dode,
I think I've given this just about as much attention as I want. I shall return to my much less active forum state.
First, I'll try to reply to the last 3 pages.

You'll be glad to know that I've changed the name to Plasmoids CRP+. Silly as that sounds. It might eventually morph into PCRP+, who knows. I know that it isn't exactly what you asked for, but I think with the name change that it is no longer reasonable to say, that it could be misunderstood to be an official product. And that's what you wanted.
Have you said it on the website? Surely it should come with a disclaimer?
You can check out the quote I posted to Mike above.
BB2 contains Brets, human buffs, and your CHANGED bank rule.
Yes. Of all the rules on my site, they've used Brets (who are not in the PRCP+ rules) and the Human buffs. The Bank rule they've used is their own. I think it spectacularlyunreasonable to extrapolate from that, that they're introducing my rules. There are way more examples of things that they obviously did not adopt.

As for my rewrite of the Bank rule, I've edited the site several places to make it very clear that I did not ask/get permission for a rewrite.
Then you don't understand the complaint, even though he underlined it.
I got it. And I think he made a worst-case assumption, due to admittedly sloppy wording from Vanguard, which Vanguard has by now cleared up.
What I don't get is the hint that my using CRP data - at y'alls request - is a subversive Ploy to mislead the masses.
How can he possibly know this without any analysis at all? Do the analysis then say "need more data". It's not like the analysis takes particularly long with a computer.
Getting it will. But if you want to throw yourself at getting data for NTBB2015 play (and possibly NTBB2014 too, since they're almost identical) then be my guest. You can have the stuff from my League, no problem.
As for knowing - the very limited data that I now have will give me very wide CIs. I've posted that before and you haven't responded. I've hammered data into that formula enough times to have a decent idea of the CI's.
Only after HUGE amounts of push from people who you seem to think are "disrupting" the thread...
Just to be clear, I think a lot of it was clear before. But I've gone along with a lot of your requests all the same. Not that it seems to be doing me any good.
He needs to be utterly explicit and quite possibly proactive. Co-opting the NAF into spreading the word regarding this would work as a means of getting that across and a means of spreading his house rules, for example. It's not cutting just one way.
I think I am utterly explicit.
As for the other thing, after checking the date, it is a hoop that I respectfully decline to jump through.
If you think it is neccesary to get the NAF to inform the mislead masses, then I guess you should take it up with them.

Cheers
Martin

Reason: ''
Narrow Tier BB? http://www.plasmoids.dk/bbowl/NTBB.htm
Or just visit http://www.plasmoids.dk instead
dode74
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie
Posts: 2565
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Near Reading, UK

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by dode74 »

Please do post the data. Better than there is some analysis than none.

Reason: ''
User avatar
VoodooMike
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:03 am

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by VoodooMike »

koadah wrote:Fair enough. But a game does not have the safety implications that a bridge has.
That's the sort of excuse that ignorant people use to claim being ignorant is a virtue rather than admit they simply don't know how to accomplish something. It's the sort of attitude that makes the world resistant to improvement.
koadah wrote:Plasmoid has at least done something.
A lot of people have "done something"... Charles Manson, for example... or Bernie Madoff! Doing something isn't laudable unless what you're doing is, itself, positive and progressive. Plasmoid's stuff is no different than any of the random, off-the-cuff posts people make about the changes they think should be made - it's just presented as though it is.
koadah wrote:Oh OK. But as long as you keep the numbers simple. Like "Who prefers this one to old one? Raise your hands." ;)
None of that clever statistics stuff.
People who playtest any rule change will tell you it's better even if you split them into two groups and have them test contradictory changes. People don't agree to playtest rules they didn't already think were a good idea, and they're even more inclined to say "yeah its so great!" owing to the expectancy effect. That's why the world uses other means to determine people's feelings rather than just saying "how do you feel?".
plasmoid wrote:But the last time I got confused, it was because you ranted that people (only name-dropping me) don't use inferential data. So I mistakenly assumed that you actually knew what you were talking about and had looked at the website
This is a lead up to a repeat of a bitch-slapping you got in a previous thread. I'm not going to play this game of yours where you slink off like a wounded dog then come back a few months later and pretend the last conversation didn't happen so you can try yet another round of the same argument in the hopes it performs better with age. Your use of misleading and muddled numbers has been covered already.
plasmoid wrote:So now you and Dode claim that this use of CRP data, which you specifically asked my to do, is a sinister ruse to mislead people into thinking that I'm actually using CRP+ data to sell my snake oil. Even though you had me do it, and even though I explicitly spell it out on the website.
No, I'm saying you don't use the data properly but you slather numbers all around to make people who don't know any better think that your snake oil is now mother's milk from Jesus's own tits. Dode (and others) are saying that you let people think that your particular brand of houserules is somehow better than the next random person's house rules, and that it has widespread backing from the former BBRC, the UN, and possibly God.. while it doesn't really have any of those things.

To the most minor degree some of your houserules have gotten support from Cyanide... because man, those guys know gold when they see it.
plasmoid wrote:And I object to the idea that you or Dode get to tell me what to do with my time.
I'll tell you what to dream about if I feel like it, you just don't have to comply. At the end of the day it comes down to whether or not you think your snake oil is going to be affected by what people like me or dode say about it. I suspect it will, and so do you.

Reason: ''
Image
legowarrior
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by legowarrior »

Name calling, for when you lack any sort of argument outside mindless angry and impotence. Happens a lot in Voodoos case judging by what he usually writes.

Reason: ''
User avatar
VoodooMike
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:03 am

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by VoodooMike »

legowarrior wrote:Name calling, for when you lack any sort of argument outside mindless angry and impotence. Happens a lot in Voodoos case judging by what he usually writes.
I'd ask if you see the irony in this statement but I already know the answer.

As it happens, I enjoy both arguing AND name calling, so I frequently do both. In this particular case it is an argument I've already had with plasmoid, he's just trying to repeat the same thing and I'm not interested in repeating myself.

Reason: ''
Image
straume
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
Posts: 364
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:21 am

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by straume »

VoodooMike wrote:
As it happens, I enjoy both arguing AND name calling, so I frequently do both.
Each to his own, I guess. The way I see it there are two problems with this approach:

1) It is rude. I am probably a bit to tender for the Interwebs, but I just don`t get how people assume it is okay to act like a jackass on a forum.
2) Any sound argument which might be there is diminished/drowned because of 1.

Reason: ''
User avatar
Regash
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Ex-Mega Star, now just a Super Star
Posts: 1610
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 11:09 am
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by Regash »

straume wrote:It is rude. I am probably a bit to tender for the Interwebs, but I just don`t get how people assume it is okay to act like a jackass on a forum.
That is easily answered:
So many people would love to be cool, rude guys who bully everyone else but can do so, only because of the anonymity of the web.

It's pretty easy to call somene names you don't even kow and who, even better, has no idea who you are.
Do that IRL, face to face with people who know who you are, where you live and maybe be in a position to get revenge...
Well, you get the idea.

To be honest, I am much more rude IRL than I am on communication platforms.
To me it's just more fun to actually see those people get mad at me! :orc:

Reason: ''
User avatar
Vanguard
Super Star
Super Star
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:27 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Re: Reconsidering the ruling on Khorne?

Post by Vanguard »

straume wrote:2) Any sound argument which might be there is diminished/drowned because of 1.
This.

Reason: ''
Image
Image
Post Reply