Talk Fantasy Football

That will be one solution.

I will add if it is possible the option "NON NAF" for record games against people never has been NAF member, and make the ranking available only when you are log in the website. If you membership is expired you shouldn't be available to check the rankings. With that option you can avoid people paying one year to be in the rankings and after that stop to paying but have all his games available to check.

As someone not heavily involved this sounds like a good approach to a possible solution.

One thing I will caution is the risk of falsification of data with dummy NON NAF or possibly to a less extent with "Non Active NAF" accounts.

40K is starting to develop a ranking system using the "ITC" system: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/communi ... t-circuit/

There recently was a problem in Canada with a guy reportedly creating false events/false players in real events and submitting data to make him and his friends formal ITC ranking look better. (Their rankings are based on total wins/event size) I'm not trying to get into the specifics or truth of those allegations but my understanding was the ITC system chose to take corrective action.

I think the existing NAF system prevents that sort of fakery largely as games are only counted against 'card carrying' NAF members most of whom are presumably paying $5 (or pounds) yearly to be in the data base. You could create fake accounts if you were willing to spend the money but that yearly fee likely prevents large scale falsification. If NAF ranking games didn't have to have an NAF'verifiable' opponent listed when being submitted for rankings you could theoretically have more opportunity for someone to falsify data on submission.

Again edge cases but sometimes people get rather weird about how awesome everyone thinks they are at playing with man dollies.

Yes the Front Line Gaming system is pretty much the same as the system RHQ first implemented years ago, and due to everyone present within the rankings not being an actual member, abuse is possible by running false events and including made up names. It never happened with RHQ because Andy was very aware of the possible abuse and kept on top of it. The NAF requirement for people to be paid up and registered members should deal with that.

Another thought that occurs is that if it can be possible for active members who don't wish to be seen in the public rankings to set their profile to 'hidden', then it should be possible to have members whose membership has lapsed automatically switch to 'hidden' until they renew. That deals with the issue of people paying only once then enjoying the rankings with their results showing forever more without renewing quite elegantly. If you want to make your profile public again once membership has lapsed, renew, access your account personally, and change the privacy setting accordingly. Don't renew, stay hidden.

And so the pNAF is born ...

http://www.thepnaf.co.uk

You're nothing without a social media presence. Where's the Facebook page?

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.

It is already easy to game the system. But why plug the pinhole when there is an open archway right beside it. Yes, less data makes it less meaningful. I do not like that aspect. I know abstaining from rankings has caused problems in other games, but we do not have any rewards based on ranking (that I know of). The games that had problems did.

There is no penalty for not playing or for playing a race other than what a coach has highly rated. Big archway. Compared to that, how is letting a coach choose to not have tournament results rated worth the effort. You say it would "significantly diminish the value of the dataset." I just don't see it.

The pinhole can allow for things that benefit the community. There are tournaments that have an award "For the Love of the Game" instead of stunty (or allows non-saurus lizardmen to qualify for stunty prize). This includes teams like an all zombie undead team or all goblin underworld. Including matches from those teams also decreases the meaningfulness. A coach that cares about their rating will never play any alternative build that is intentionally handicapped. Encouraging coaches to play handicapped builds without affecting their rating is good.

I for myself couldn't care less.
I just don't see why people shouldn't be able to opt out of the rankings, meaning that NONE of their games is displayed.
When shown on other coaches pages, there should be an Anonymus opponent and their own coach page shows no entries at all, maybe not even for themselves.

Opting in or out of the rankings should be followed by an option lock for at least one year, maybe even longer, just to make sure, they consider the pros and cons of their decision thoroughly and don't hop between on and off as the like.

No data will be lost and those, who want privacy, get it.

On a sidenote, I tried to log into my age old account to get rid of some data like name, adress and other stuff.
Just because i'm not an active member, I can't.
That is more of a problem, if you ask me.

Regash wrote:I for myself couldn't care less.
I just don't see why people shouldn't be able to opt out of the rankings, meaning that NONE of their games is displayed.
When shown on other coaches pages, there should be an Anonymus opponent and their own coach page shows no entries at all, maybe not even for themselves.

Opting in or out of the rankings should be followed by an option lock for at least one year, maybe even longer, just to make sure, they consider the pros and cons of their decision thoroughly and don't hop between on and off as the like.

No data will be lost and those, who want privacy, get it.

On a sidenote, I tried to log into my age old account to get rid of some data like name, adress and other stuff.
Just because i'm not an active member, I can't.
That is more of a problem, if you ask me.

https://www.thenaf.net/the-naf/contact-us/

Contact the Naf and tell the staff what you need fixed.
The VP will send it your neighborhood friendly Membership Director who will provide ASAP.

Alternatively you can drop the Naf a little something, get a wonderful gadget and do the fixing on your own.

Complicated and, at least to me, not obvious, but thanks.
And let's be honest, I just have to trust people to do what I want as I still can't log in to check.
Not really according to data protection laws, is it?

Rolex wrote:Alternatively you can drop the Naf a little something, get a wonderful gadget and do the fixing on your own.

Why do you think my account is age old and inactive?!?
I still believe, as a non-tournament player, the NAF does not much if not nothing for me.

Regash wrote:Complicated and, at least to me, not obvious, but thanks.
And let's be honest, I just have to trust people to do what I want as I still can't log in to check.
Not really according to data protection laws, is it?

That part is exactly according to the laws. The law requires that a person has to request his privacy from an organization. This can be either done electronically or by fax or paper mail. Honestly, what is so difficult to write an email to contact@thenaf.net and put down one sentence including your nickname and your NAF number to request to hide your personal information. Many people have done that in the past (active or not active the like), why can't you do that?

Tojurub wrote:why can't you do that?

He’d literally have nothing to complain about then and whatever axe he has to grind with the NAF would be pointless.

I'm clearly misunderstood.
I did conract the NAF to remove my personal data.
But I still can not log in and check if they really did.
What I don't think is according to data protection laws is the fact that I have to trust you with no means of seeing for myself if the job was done.

Tojurub wrote:...to hide your personal information...

And I think you just made a little mistake there. Hiding is not enough, you have to remove it if I ask you to.

@fromherashes:
I have no "axe to grind" with anyone, least of all the NAF.
It just so happens that I don't enjoy tournaments very much as I am a fun player and not a competitive one.
So, in my opinion, the NAF is just an organisation that has absolutely no benefit or sense for me to be an active member of, that's all.

And, if you have to know, the data I want removed is so old and outdated, it doesn't even make sense for the NAF to keep it.

scs.sam wrote:My two cents worth -

I'm not as militant as Simon on this in that I will keep my membership to the naf etc ... but I understand his reaction - Khorne & Brettonian are complete Bollocks.
Perhaps it's time for someone to form the PNAF - a Pure version of the NAF

Best delete those pesky Slann, Chaos Pact and Underworld teams then.....

I'm struggling to see the real issue with Khorne here.

1. It's real life people playing with dollies FFS!
2. If you really don't like the ruleset at a particular tournament, DON'T ATTEND!
3. I've just finished a tournament with Khorne, and they are effectively Norse without Block.
4. Fluff changes over the years. Witness 40K and so forth. I last played 40K around 2003 but I understand that it's changed around a dozen times since, with a new strain introduced as well (30K).
5. Things evolve (see point 4 above). The community votes, not everyone agrees, if you don't like a ruleset, either protest it sensibly, campaign to have it changed or removed, or accept the majority decision of those willing to vote in the first place.
6. It's toy soldiers FFS!

It might be dollies and toy soldiers but so many players take this shit, especially NAF-ranking, way to serious.
That is the main problem: People taking the game more serious than the game itself does.

And yes, in my opinion, if you play wrld-wide official stuff, you should stick to official rules.
NAF-sanctioned turnaments, in MY opinion, should have stuck to the CRP and now BB16 rules, just to have something, that is the same for everyone.
(Meaning that Slann, Khorne and Brettonia are still no-nos and Underworld + Chaos Pact being only added in 2016!)

Yes, you are right, things evolve.
But, as you mentioned 40K, who evolved it?
GW or a bunch of fans playing it at home?
Changes made by GW or changes made by the NAF are a completly different slice of pie.

But, as always, people are just doing what they want. So why are you all upset if someone says: "I'm not gonna be a part of this anymore!"?