Team England Charter Proposals *VOTING ENDED — SEE RESULTS*

[speedingbullet]

I haven't really looked through this thread so I apologise if this has been raised and dismissed before. Is there a sensible way of comparing each coach's race stats to the average for that race? Also clearly sample size should be a consideration. That way you're unlikely to be punished very hard for having a few "fun" events.

This seems a very interesting suggestion, one for future consideration perhaps.

[speedingbullet]

Firstly, just to agree with others that this seems a healthy debate.

Wulfyn’s post about the geographies where he has played his Blood Bowl is interesting. On the one hand there are people making the argument that the Doc B proposal will lead to a more competitive English scene and that this would not be a good thing. On the other hand there are people making the argument that they travel abroad to play tournaments, partly because they need to do so to find competitive games. Does this suggest that a more competitive scene could actually be good for the game in England?

Would a more competitive scene in England lead to too many people taking Wood Elves, Dark Elves, Lizards and Undead to tournaments? I don’t think so. Partly because of the great work that our Tournament Organisers (TOs) do in coming up with varied rulesets. Tournaments are won by a wide variety of races. If there was initially a significant increase in the big four races then I have no doubt there would be a swift TO response with teaks to rulesets to bring back increased racial variety.

The Doc B proposal is primarily a proposal for retaining subjective selection. The Captain remains the sole selector and the Captain is not forced to select anyone in the Doc B proposals. If a coach plays Wood Elves all year and forces themselves into the top 10 available coaches at selection time, then are they going to be picked by the Captain? Most likely not. This is a very narrow example I admit but this coach would only have demonstrated an ability to play very well with Wood Elves. The coach would likely only be selected if the Captain believed this coach to be the best available Wood Elf player.

I think Mubo will look at Wulfyn’s example, where he took a “fun” roster choice to a couple of tournaments rather than an optimum (for results) roster choice, to see how much these two tournaments have impacted on Wulfyn’s EGR ranking.

In terms of choices already made impacting the selection, that is a concern. This is mitigated to some degree by the proposal as it stands i.e. selection although guided is still subjective. It is also partially mitigated by the start date for Doc B qualification which is proposed as May 2020 for the qualification period ahead of Malta 2021.

I don’t see why minor changes couldn’t be incorporated into Doc B prior to the vote opening. I suggest the mechanism to do that would be for the committee (at least 3 from 5 committee members) being persuaded by the arguments on this forum and agreeing the wording of the changes. That would probably be an impossible timescale for major changes but I don’t see why that shouldn’t be possible for some minor changes.

A possible change that hasn’t been widely discussed yet on this forum is the split between the number of guided selections and the number of wildcard selections.

[Barney the Lurker]

Great post, thanks Jim.

One of the things I didn't like about doc B was the choice split.

2 wildcards seemed a bit restrictive to me and would be more likely to support it if it was upped to 3 wildcards and 4 out of the top 10.

I think this gives the captain more Flexibility to build a more rounded Team.

[besters]

I thought that the whole point of this process was to reduce the subjective aspect of selection?

One thought that occurred to me was to have a selection committee rather than leave selection to one person, the captain. I can think of several ways to make up such a body. But I suggest that when the captain is elected there are also two non-playing selectors also elected and this committee picks the team rather than just one person.

Again there should probably be suitable qualifications identified for the role, such as, playing at tournaments over a number of years.

Perhaps it's a sign of a good compromise that we have arguments going in both directions?

[Barney the Lurker]

I think it’s more about making the whole process more open to all interested and transparent and not necessarily about reducing subjectivity or changing who chooses the final team.

Let’s not forget that the current system has proved pretty successful and we don’t want to create a selection system that actually creates a weaker team. The rankings aren’t infallible and don’t necessarily show the best players with the right mindset or who would form the most cohesive team and give us the best chance to win.

[Joemanji]

Wulfyn’s post about the geographies where he has played his Blood Bowl is interesting. On the one hand there are people making the argument that the Doc B proposal will lead to a more competitive English scene and that this would not be a good thing. On the other hand there are people making the argument that they travel abroad to play tournaments, partly because they need to do so to find competitive games. Does this suggest that a more competitive scene could actually be good for the game in England?

The key difference here is that we would be blanket enforcing an ultra-competitive environment for every single coach in the entire country whether they have signed up for it or not. It's the removal of choice not the existence of competition.

If there was initially a significant increase in the big four races then I have no doubt there would be a swift TO response with teaks to rulesets to bring back increased racial variety.

This is not desirable, nor would it be effective. The lower tier races are by nature more volatile and variable. If we start having tournaments where Slann and Vampires are as good as Undead then the quality of the data we are getting takes a big dip in quality. Even that is assuming that every single TO writes a great rulespack with sensible tiers, which is about as likely as me winning most attractive Blood Bowler at the next World Cup. So with exploitable rulespacks the data takes a further hit in quality.

I thought that the whole point of this process was to reduce the subjective aspect of selection?

It absolutely is not. There are two factors at play here: a) picking the best Team England, and b) having a transparent process that gives people a clear pathway to follow if they want to get into the TE reckoning.

The current system has shown to be the the best one in terms of a). I don't think that is in any doubt. We've won the last five Eurobowls in a row, and six from the last seven. So we are only and entirely talking about this proposal in the context of b).

Oh and besides, rankings are nonsense and not really any less subjective than someone's opinion. At least in terms of making precise judgements; of course you'll find the good players roughly near the top and the bad ones the bottom.

[besters]

I thought that the whole point of this process was to reduce the subjective aspect of selection?

It absolutely is not. There are two factors at play here: a) picking the best Team England, and b) having a transparent process that gives people a clear pathway to follow if they want to get into the TE reckoning.

The current system has shown to be the the best one in terms of a). I don't think that is in any doubt. We've won the last five Eurobowls in a row, and six from the last seven. So we are only and entirely talking about this proposal in the context of b).

Oh and besides, rankings are nonsense and not really any less subjective than someone's opinion. At least in terms of making precise judgements; of course you'll find the good players roughly near the top and the bad ones the bottom.

I would agree with most of this, the current system has worked from a result viewpoint, but that doesn't mean it's the best. But surely your point b is about making the process less subjective, otherwise how can it be more transparent?

[Pipey]

Had a chance to pick out some specific questions people had asked. My own thoughts here. Other committee members may put me straight / disagree as required

@Besters (why Glicko and not Elo?)
The main reason I feel it is better is the decay aspect i.e. the confidence score (phi) which brings your ranking down if you aren’t playing regularly. We did run some global Elo scores and one striking thing was that there were coaches who hadn’t played in 5 years or more still appearing near the top of the list. Also I think it’s an improvement that tournament size/status is not considered; coach A beating coach B affects scores just the same regardless of which tourney it was at.

Mubo is your expert on Glicko and might be able to say more.

@PeteW (phased process of committee re-election?)
This seems an interesting idea though maybe a little too complex. Personally I would prefer to see how things pan out with the current proposal before we look to change it. I would note there isn’t anything stopping committee members standing for consecutive terms so that might allow continuity in theory, assuming individuals do want to stand again (and in which case assuming they are elected!).

@Lunchmoney (what if someone has a high stunty win percentage?)
This sort of thing is an imperfection with the ranking system for sure. Someone could score a 5/1/0 with goblins in the qualification period and it wouldn’t count for the EGR. More likely that most would play them non-competitively without EB selection in mind so excluding them seems sensible. I guess there's a fair chance an 80% goblin coach might catch the captain's eye on the wildcard...

@Wobert and others (is it enough to exclude stunty only?)
I take this point, made by others including Geggster I think. Though whatever you exclude you run the risk of the problem Lunchmoney raises, more so the higher up the ladder you go. A weighted race score based on NAF stats might be preferable and that could be looked into (as suggested by Wagz). One caveat to that - the variable level of tiering around in lots of tournaments these days would complicate that process.

@Barney (why peak and not average?)
This is where we need to acknowledge Tank, Tripleskull and co who run similar rankings for qualification to the Danish Eurobowl team (with notable differences especially around subjective part). They use peak scores to avoid the issue of coaches playing to an artificial date and we followed their thinking. I guess average scores would do the same and would also be a good measure. Again, may well be one to discuss for future.

@Wulfyn (will the list of candidates be made public?)
Sure. The committee will invite candidates forward and update a list, in a similar way as previous captains have.

@Skitters (was a qualification tournament considered?)
It was and we decided against that route. For my part I wanted people to be able to make their case with the fewest changes as possible to their tournament habits. To ask people to continue playing the tournaments they enjoy but play well consistently. Asking interested individuals to attend particular weekend(s) seemed problematic. So many things can intervene to make a particular date difficult (work, family, holidays etc.) that it didn’t seem practical. And again, I don’t think basing picks on a good tournament or two is the right way to select in any case.

[Pipey]

The other thing to let people know is that the process of installing a new captain will start more or less straight after the proposals are voted on, to be completed by the end of December - usual process of inviting candidates forward, Q&A and voting.

[Leipziger]

As the other committee member that was in favour of including Document B in the proposals I should add to (& repeat some of) what Jim & Brendan have already said.

It is undeniable that we have a very successful team, but as Besters points out that doesn’t necessarily mean that the selection method is the best alternative. We are lucky enough as a nation to have had a cohort of excellent players that I imagine would in most years have been chosen by other selection criteria.

The current conditions tell a coach that they need to attend tournaments and place well, which of course makes sense, but how does one know when are they good enough to be on the team/what does a coach have to do to maintain their position in the team?

A ranking system/some more specific criteria opens up the conversation to more coaches, and given the vast number of tournaments that are available now across the country it’s hard to keep on top of exactly who is doing what.

It may even encourage a few more coaches to try and push for TE.

A ‘Race to Eurobowl’/Ryder Cup qualification style challenge does also generate some buzz, gives the Captain some management calls to make (& some space to make them), and lets people know they are at least in the frame for the discussion regarding who goes to the next EB.

[Wulfyn]

A few technical questions if I may:

1. Brendan - not sure that quite answered my question. My point was that previously some people did not publicly declare their interest but were still picked. Will people have to declare their interest to be eligible? Ie can someone be picked if they don't declare an interest?

2. What happens if people make the top 10 but have not declared an interest? Say only 7 have. Is it 5 picks from those 7? Does the top 10 extend now to the top 10 that have declared?

3. What if someone is interested, declared, picked, and then cannot go? If they are, say, a top 10 pick must their replacement also be a top 10?

4. Same q as 3, but it is a late drop out.

5. Same question as 3 and 4 but with racial selections. What if there is no good combination of coaches to pick an 8 because of the lack of experience within the top 10? For example if the top 10 changes because people are now padding their stats with Wood Elf games resulting in the all rounders currently there being knocked out, what will the committee do?

6. Speaking of 5, the committee seems to have made a prediction that behaviours will not change to game the new system with regard to things like playing a lot of Wood Elves / Undead. What monitoring has the committee put in place to check that their prediction is coming true? What critical success/failure threshold and backup plan is in place if the prediction is wrong? Is the committee's position to assuage the fears that people are bringing forward about this by saying that they think it won't happen, but to carry on regardless if they are wrong?

7. Is there any plan to bring in regional boosting to the Glicko rankings? Mubo has expressed a hesitation to publish the global results for everyone publicly because some nations are undervalued, for example France (this is because people tend to play people in the same region, so no matter how good that region is it must have the same average as all other regions unless inter-region games are played). Given that there is a belief by the main advocate and creator for BB that the system is not reflective of the true performance of French coaches, will those of us who play against them be penalised by facing rankings much lower relative to skill than in the UK?

8. Will the committee put in place any caps to the eligible tournaments? For those that have a tiering system or ruleset very different to Eurobowl, how reflective is success here an indicator for TE success? For example tournaments that have 1.3TV, or those with spp and advancements, or those with complicated skill packages where you might lose because of a bad selection rather than bad play? Or what about 24hr tournaments which probably isn't the best predictor? Who will decide which tournaments are in and which are out?

9. Will the committee place caps on the number of tournaments people are allowed to participate in? The example of me last year showed I attended 9 tournaments, but my phi still worsened by 5 meaning I lost 15 ranking points from less attendance. What work has the committee done to ensure that any such phi change is fair and reflective? What if people with more disposable income try a pay to win approach?

10. Will there be any consideration for people trying to play a new race or experimenting? Someone in the top 10 may want to try a new build to see how it does or branch into a new team. But whilst that learning curve goes on their global ranking could take a hit. What considerations have the committee put in to address that the meta may become static as people just grind tried and tested teams and builds? Who will monitor this?

All for now - thanks guys! Appreciate your hard work.

[Purplegoo]

On #1, to the best of my understanding / recollection, it has always been the case that you have to publicly declare interest in being selected with the exception of last time, when Dave experimented with a concurrent private system. His reasoning was that a public list of 'big guns' puts some off even trying, and he thought it would drum up more interest. Perhaps he could speak to the success / failure of this and guide the answer to Dan's question accordingly?

We're all nerds, we have our own triggers and areas where we want more detail. While supportive of Dan's drive for specifics, I guess this avenue doesn't really flip my switch and I just assume that (in a 'yes to B' world) something is going to be missed in the blurb or overlooked in the plan and we have five people we've elected to make sensible decisions that will amend / answer / update it on the fly. I'm much more concerned with the top level arguments as to why this is a good / bad thing rather than getting stuck on potential edge cases. If you've got mubo (committee member and the guy coding the system) telling you there are more negatives than positives and he's not even releasing the thing for the wider community to enjoy (in spite of the fact it would be pretty popular, as all numbers are. I'd much rather he pushed it out!), alarm bells should be ringing, regardless of if you think a qualification system is a good thing or not. Even if I could get over my philosophical issues with doc B (which I can't), Nick's post would have killed me off. (Edit: Not trying to shut Dan down at all here, just thinking out loud, I guess?)

One thing that occurred over the weekend that hasn't been discussed yet is that the proposed system locks TE into fielding a competitive side. I know that practically this is what we've always tried to do anyway, but I do like that, theoretically, it is presently possible for a captain to stand on a different arm of the selection tripod and pitch a vision to the community of a Team England selected on participation or contribution. We're not in it to win it this year, guys, we're in it to reward this other laudable behaviour. Now, I wouldn't vote for such a candidate at the expense of fielding a competitive team, but I like that s/he can currently exist, and I think it would be a shame to shut that option down.

[mubo]

Code: Select all

	coachname	naf_number	race	nation	rating
0	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=11777||Purplegoo	11777	global	England	1626.67
1	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=149||Podfrey	149	global	England	1617.85
2	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=5290||Pipey	5290	global	England	1612.66
3	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=70||Geggster	70	global	England	1588.58
4	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=3312||Joemanji	3312	global	England	1580
5	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=10691||kfoged	10691	global	England	1576.83
6	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=10434||Don_Vito	10434	global	England	1571.13
7	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=12403||Jimjimany	12403	global	England	1547.23
8	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=13409||mubo	13409	global	England	1541.84
9	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=20617||YogiBedlamBear	20617	global	England	1518.88
10	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=5131||Besters	5131	global	England	1505.37
11	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=20556||Wulfyn	20556	global	England	1500.89
12	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=8690||Ambush3	8690	global	England	1500.27
13	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=2870||Lycos	2870	global	England	1493.37
14	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=8901||wilzif	8901	global	England	1491.97
15	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=12545||Winkle_Picka	12545	global	England	1485.36
16	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=21829||Endzone	21829	global	England	1482.66
17	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=7769||Petew	7769	global	England	1478.39
18	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=7553||stick_with_poo_on_the_end	7553	global	England	1478.14
19	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=7078||Ratman	7078	global	England	1469.54
20	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=7741||Stu2	7741	global	England	1455.92
21	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=24927||gritter	24927	global	England	1449.57
22	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=16845||speedingbullet	16845	global	England	1445.81
23	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=9370||Ceetee	9370	global	England	1444.34
24	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=5893||GORGOROTH	5893	global	England	1441.14
25	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=9897||NippyLongskar	9897	global	England	1440.38
26	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=7873||Maverick	7873	global	England	1416.83
27	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=16417||ploppy_mcploppy	16417	global	England	1415.74
28	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=10572||Barney_the_Lurker	10572	global	England	1409.02
29	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=16176||Nazgob	16176	global	England	1406.88
30	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=20977||drdeath	20977	global	England	1404.79
31	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=21949||ringbeard	21949	global	England	1402.02
32	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=24645||PurpleChest	24645	global	England	1400.64
33	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=4768||Indibro	4768	global	England	1394.37
34	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=20553||JBone	20553	global	England	1390.15
35	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=23554||alsarion	23554	global	England	1388.69
36	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=14738||Bobafettsmum	14738	global	England	1387.08
37	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=16184||wotfudboy	16184	global	England	1378.61
38	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=23406||Goldengate	23406	global	England	1377.57
39	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=10997||Mamapepe	10997	global	England	1369.98
40	https://member.thenaf.net/index.php?module=NAF&type=tournamentinfo&uid=3709||howlinggriffon	3709	global	England	1368.12

Here is the list excluding underworld (as well as goblins, haflings and ogres. I thought it would be fairer to exclude UW for everyone (not just Wulfyn).

A jump from #20 to #12 (sorry this one is 0-indexed- that's python for you).

[mubo]

I'd like to address Dan's first point. I think it's an important one that we need to get right, and perhaps the current proposal doesn't lay out a position clearly enough.

I personally don't like the TE system of a public declaration of interest for consideration. I think some people may be a bit reticent to put their names in the hat. I'd like a system where people can ask to be excluded from the list of eligible players, but otherwise are assumed to opt in. Obviously a captain would contact and get a reasonably positive answer before publishing a team. The committee would like to hear thoughts on this as part of both doc B "subjective + qualification" or the alternative "captain's picks".

@Besters selection committee idea: it's not something we are planning to put forward currently. But if there is a strong community movement behind the idea we can begin to flesh something out.

[Purplegoo]

Here is the list excluding underworld (as well as goblins, haflings and ogres. I thought it would be fairer to exclude UW for everyone (not just Wulfyn).

I want to be careful to not contradict myself here - I do think that this system drives interested coaches to play more big boy races in the general case. I have read the counter arguments, and they have not come close to convincing me otherwise. But in the case of more heavily tiered rulesets, highly respected coaches (see: Truls, Jokaero at the World Cup) consider Underworld a top level pick. Especially as a meta counter to Woodies.

Really, outside of the bottom three, I think anything you choose to exclude will have it's day in the sun somewhere in the calendar. I would argue that Underworld are much more useful than Khorne most of the time, but looking at Brassbowl this year, maybe that is Khorne's moment. While this system would encourage me to play top level races 90 % of the time, there is always going to be that tournament somewhere where you will sniff value and take advantage of a mis-tiered race.

But anyway. I don't think wrangling over edge case races is as important as the principle. So I'll shut back up.

Edit: Perhaps Nick was directly addressing Dan's point, rather than suggesting UW should be binned. Don't know. But I have seen arguments above for slimming the number of eligible races down, and the above is why I don't think that's sensible. Not that any of this is sensible anyway, etc, etc.