Page 9 of 11

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:39 pm
by mubo
Tojurub wrote:
mubo wrote: I'm sure there is at least one person who doesn't want their real name prominent on the NAF website for example.
There is more than one. The committee was approached with that by one person and we have acted immediately, I think within one week since it took some days to implement in the code/settings.
Great - glad to hear!

Minor point, does one have to be a paying member in good standing to make this change? Because I think if not then it invalidates initial premise of this thread.

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:58 pm
by sann0638
Admins can tweak it for people.

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:48 pm
by CyberedElf
I've read all the changes of bickering, I'll respond to that at the end. First I wanted to address the OP subject. I find the reasoning to be untenable. What is practicing with a team to protect a high rating? I practice in league all the time while protecting my NAF rating. I don't have any concept of what the perceived threat is here. A coach is already free to play halflings only at tournaments that are more friendly to them. Why does forcing someone to play ranked games make NAF better? If you truly believe forcing people to play ranked games makes NAF better, why stop at this niche case? I actually highly value the system of NAF ratings. Why is this ok, but not saying that all NAF sanctioned games are recorded is also ok? Why make a rule with obvious loopholes, when you can close the loopholes?

To the main discussion: membership is not binary. Non-member, active member, and inactive member. No longer paying dues makes someone an inactive member, not a non-member. In Darkson's request to move from (eventual) inactive member to non-member. This is a special case and his personal form of protest. I may think it is pointless (and I may think he is a jerk), but I respect his right to protest and make the request. I don't actually think NAF is obligated to reclassify him, but I think they should. (Following privacy laws as applicable.) I believe NAF owns the historical game records, but I don't think Darkson was actually asking those to be removed.

Unless the NAF or tournament specifically require it, I think anyone should be able to request prior to the tournament that their games not be recorded for NAF. I would prefer that NAF require a NAF id to play at a NAF sanctioned event, but until then I think it is pointless to require all games that don't include a non-member to be recorded. I don't think the arguments presented by the OP present sufficient reason to make such niche restrictions that have such obvious loopholes.

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:36 am
by hutchinsfairy
CyberedElf wrote:I think anyone should be able to request prior to the tournament that their games not be recorded for NAF.
All other considerations aside, this would make the data less meaningful. As soon as you allow users to veto potentially unfavourable results you significantly diminish the value of the dataset. Allowing coaches to easily game the system is probably bad.

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:52 am
by Rolex
hutchinsfairy wrote:
CyberedElf wrote:I think anyone should be able to request prior to the tournament that their games not be recorded for NAF.
All other considerations aside, this would make the data less meaningful. As soon as you allow users to veto potentially unfavourable results you significantly diminish the value of the dataset. Allowing coaches to easily game the system is probably bad.
This also can cause a extremely complicated problem... what if someone asks to abstain and the tournament organizer enters the data nonetheless?
BOOM! Diplomatic crisis.

Better just stop abstaining altogether.

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:53 am
by viyullas
hutchinsfairy wrote:
CyberedElf wrote:I think anyone should be able to request prior to the tournament that their games not be recorded for NAF.
All other considerations aside, this would make the data less meaningful. As soon as you allow users to veto potentially unfavourable results you significantly diminish the value of the dataset. Allowing coaches to easily game the system is probably bad.
Are you reading the whole thread?
Nobody is asking to remove potentially bad result from rankings, justo to stop recording ALL the results from someone that don't want his results in the ranking. ALL the results. From now on. And that persons is not even an active NAF member, but if a NAF member want's to do the same he should be allowed to do it.

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:07 am
by hutchinsfairy
viyullas wrote:Are you reading the whole thread?
Yes, in fact I'd recommend it. The OP is about not allowing coaches to select which NAF sanctioned tournaments are going to affect their rankings and which will not, potentially allowing them to manipulate their standings.

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:19 am
by JT-Y
Honestly, I think it's a simple matter of allowing individuals to set their profile to hidden (though I don't know how much work that would take within the database). Results should still be recorded but you won't be able to go and find an individual, see their rankings, or see what tournaments they've attended whilst a profile is hidden, but should they change it it should all be there to be made visible. Their opponents will still have a result against 'hidden' opponent using whatever team, and results should still count.
But opting out should be an all or nothing thing, you are either hidden for everything, or for nothing.
That's what other rankings system in the past and today have done. It should allow those individuals who object to rankings for whatever reason to abstain, and it should allow those who care to join in whilst losing nothing. This is very reminiscent of conversations had in the past about RHQ and the like a very long time ago now, when the internet was still dial-up for most people.

The problem is when stuff like this gets over thought, particularly when you over think the reasons why people shouldn't have the freedom to opt out in some form. It's vital to recognise that others just won't feel the same way about such peripheral issues that surround the hobby in general. It's always possible to cater for everyone, and very well if so desired.
Given the choice I'd set my profile to 'hidden', I'm not a member of the NAF for the rankings, I genuinely think it has much more to offer and that's why I remain a member and keen to work with the committee for the good of the community/our customers.

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:32 am
by sann0638
Thanks JTY, I think you may actually have the solution to some of the problems - perhaps we should have explored this more a couple of months back. This would not be trivial however, and the NAF would have to pay for the development.

What this would need is:
- a blank in the opponent field in any match report
- blanked out tables on the coach page

And conceivably:
- a blank in the list of attendees for a particular tournament.

It would be a policy and technical change, however, obviously, so wouldn't happen overnight. There are various other issues that this does not cover, though.

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:07 pm
by kyrre
-- Removed stupid post --

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:13 pm
by hutchinsfairy
sann0638 wrote:Thanks JTY, I think you may actually have the solution - perhaps we should have explored this more a couple of months back. This would not be trivial however, and the NAF would have to pay for the development.

What this would need is:
- a blank in the opponent field in any match report
- blanked out tables on the coach page

And conceivably:
- a blank in the list of attendees for a particular tournament.

It would be a policy and technical change, however, obviously, so wouldn't happen overnight.
And if the issue raised in this thread was genuinely on its own merit and isn't just being deployed as a retaliatory strike then that might be the end of it.

It sounds like some members might use it (e.g. JT-Y) but there should probably be some mindfulness of cost vs usefulness.

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:23 pm
by hutchinsfairy
kyrre wrote:Obviously, you would have to decide before you enter the tournament.
Yes, CyberedElf's point was quite clear on that so I didn't reiterate in my response. I was really just echoing the OP in stating that allowing coaches to choose which tournaments count (even before knowing the results) is to give them a way to manipulate their standings.
hutchinsfairy wrote:
CyberedElf wrote:I think anyone should be able to request prior to the tournament that their games not be recorded for NAF.
All other considerations aside, this would make the data less meaningful. As soon as you allow users to veto potentially unfavourable results you significantly diminish the value of the dataset. Allowing coaches to easily game the system is probably bad.

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:31 pm
by kyrre
hutchinsfairy wrote:
kyrre wrote:Obviously, you would have to decide before you enter the tournament.
Yes, CyberedElf's point was quite clear on that so I didn't reiterate in my response. I was really just echoing the OP in stating that allowing coaches to choose which tournaments count (even before knowing the results) is to give them a way to manipulate their standings.
It should have been. My mistake.

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:33 pm
by kyrre
sann0638 wrote:Thanks JTY, I think you may actually have the solution to some of the problems - perhaps we should have explored this more a couple of months back. This would not be trivial however, and the NAF would have to pay for the development.

What this would need is:
- a blank in the opponent field in any match report
- blanked out tables on the coach page

Actual Elo-rating, while hidden, still have to be tracked to figure out everyone else's Elo rating. Outside of the actual checkbox in the user's account, I think this is can be solved by replacing a coach's nick with a common nick for any abstainers, like "Anonymous coach", in all queries that result in a public report. A blank opponent field will probably not cut it as it already carries a meaning in the dataset (no coach). There are quite a few blank coaches in there already.

I think there are maybe 4 reports affected currently? Simple tournament results, advanced results, ranking and coach info. Not an insurmountable development challenge if prioritized.

Re: Abstaining from ranking

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:16 pm
by JT-Y
That's exactly what I was talking about. An option that allows users to set their profile to appear as hidden or anonymous on queries. Keep recording everything as normal but let the individual choose quite simply if that is shown or not.
I don't see any reason why in others match records "anonymous coach" shouldn't have the team they used visible, but clicking for more info takes you to a "sorry that profile is hidden" page rather than their coach page with all their stats and history.

It shouldn't contain anything that makes more work when uploading results or running data at a tournament.