Team England Charter Proposals *VOTING ENDED — SEE RESULTS*

[Pipey]

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).

This excludes my 3/0/0 with underworld at Monkeybowl where I beat two top tenners - Joemanji and Don Vito...

Guess this is Pgoo's point. They can be competitive. They look pretty tasty in the Polish rules for one.

And it does Illustrate the difficulty of cutting out certain races. We did feel Stunty were a full category down from the others. Generally competing against one another for the Stunty Cup.

Zeroing in a little on Wulfyn's observation that he played Underworld as a fun choice and wouldn't expect the captain to draw conclusions from those results... This is a tricky one because it's fairly impossible to know that you were playing non-competitively based on the result in the database. There's no way the captain would know unless they saw your roster, witnessed the matches, or they were told. When I play underworld (especially at tiered tournaments) I expect to compete against all the races, my approach would be as competitive as any other event. Begs the question of how a player seeking to make a case should indicate when their ethos is fun rather than to win. That's got to be tricky unless you have a direct communication line with the skipper, which is obviously tricky with so many potential coaches.

Suppose this would be the sort of thing we might ask captains in a Q&A (whether Doc B is accepted or not) - how would you allow players to have a fun tournament and still make a case for being selected? How would you make this process transparent for all?

[mubo]

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.

Yes- addressing Dan's point. I could have excluded Dan's games at the 2 tourneys he took UW to. But I thought this would be fairer. It was less work certainly.
Also, untiered UW are a totally different thing to EB Poland UW, so for qualification to work that needs to be considered too.

[Barney the Lurker]

Just to chime in again with my 2 pennys worth. I'm largely in favour of a public declaration of interest.

When I was looing at the lists last year I would have been a bit put off, if having seen the list of interested candidates when the final team was announced that it compromised a majority who had not publicly declared their interest. I think it is good to have a more open and transparent system, and believe that last years method actually feeds the 'closed-group' concerns that some had about the Team England set up.

[Joemanji]

These last couple of pages perfectly demonstrate that even if they do not change behaviour, these rankings are still highly subjective, not objective.

[besters]

I didn't register an interest for Team England at Cardiff as it felt wrong not having played when the tournament was in Europe. But I agree, the process should be open, either everyone should be required to put there name forward, or my preference, everyone is assumed to be available. Surely, it shouldn't be too difficult to ask availability for those likely to be selected?

With regard to exclusion of races, with the possible exception of stunty teams, I think all should be included, my preference for exclusion would be Khemri, I'm rubbish with them, they are my lowest ranked team, can't even beat stunties. I quite like, and get reasonable results, with Underworld.

[PeteW]

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".
.

Not sure this would work. Some people would forget, not get the memo, or purposefully not 'opt out'. Then the captain would spend hours looking over performances, rankings (to annoy goo), consider mental strength, and finally put together a team with coaches assigned to races. Then a couple of their coaches (when contacted) aren't available. Back to the drawing board!

People have to opt-in to be considered. Whether it is public or private, I'm not bothered, but I agree that there needs to be consistency - either all-public or all-private.

[speedingbullet]

I'm in favour of it being public and transparent. Travelling abroad to play Blood Bowl is a big commitment and just assuming people are up for that doesn't feel right to me.

[Pipey]

Yeah on this one I'm struggling to see a benefit of privately disclosed interest. Share Barney's observations about last year. I'm in favour of it being open.

I wonder whether anyone has actually felt put off by the list per se? Don't think I've heard that case put perhaps other than by Mubo.

Just seems confusing and needlessly clandestine to me. If the TE regulars don't disclose but have every wish to be selected, seems it might be quite discouraging for a hopeful to be dashed when it turns out the heavyweights wanted in anyway.

[Leipziger]

+1 for public declaration of interest.

[Wulfyn]

Zeroing in a little on Wulfyn's observation that he played Underworld as a fun choice and wouldn't expect the captain to draw conclusions from those results... This is a tricky one because it's fairly impossible to know that you were playing non-competitively based on the result in the database. There's no way the captain would know unless they saw your roster, witnessed the matches, or they were told.

Yes, this is exactly my point - it is impossible to know, and practically impossible to administer. But you are willing to retrospectively punish players who would have no way to know that such a thing would affect their TE ranking forever. That seems harsh.

For the record I am not arguing that UW should be excluded. I'm not saying "UW are not competitive, they should be removed", I'm saying "I took 2 joke teams that just so happened to be UW, and joke teams should be removed". UW can be tasty sure. Taking 2 ball and chain star players with no bribes is clearly not in that category, right?

From 20th to 12th is a hell of a jump.

[Pipey]

A few technical questions if I may...

For the guided component, the top 10 who are available must be chosen from. So that could extend down to 13, 14, 15 or however far if some of the actual top 10 aren’t available.

We didn’t specifically discuss what would happen if someone declares, gets picked, then withdraws, either late or with notice. As far as I can see the common sense resolution would be for a guided pick to be replaced by a guided pick, and wildcard for wildcard. If very late I guess it might be more of a case of whoever is available to step in.

We definitely don’t expect the guided system to create a combination of coaches who cannot be adequately matched to races. If we felt that was at all likely to happen it wouldn’t have got this far!

I have stated that I believe some of the posts predicting new tournament behaviours are exaggerated. I would accept it may affect individual coach’s choices. Though I think this might affect a relatively small number of players wishing to gain or maintain a place in the team, rather than the whole community suddenly facing off against Wood Elves every other match, as has been intimated. It should be reiterated that someone evidently “padding their stats” or “paying to win” may well fall foul of the large amount of subjectivity in the system. Therefore it might not be the best idea for an individual to pursue that route.

More generally there is no crystal ball, so it’s a really a matter for voters to decide what they think might happen, whether this proposed change is going to be for better or for worse.

There has been no discussion of regional boosting with Glicko, though we did discuss how rankings can have more meaning within a geographical area vs. comparison between areas. We also did not feel a cap on a number of games was helpful either. Generally we are open to discuss any suggestion which might improve any aspect of the Charter going forward.

[Podfrey]

I want to clarify something first.

In terms of the move from bespoke forum to TFF, as I have stated a number of times this was NOT in response to not being selected per se but the manner in which the selection process was run by the Captain at the time, i.e. behind closed doors. The disappointment of Cardiff was short term, but not preventing it from happening again would have been ongoing. That is the reason I moved the discussion here.

————————————————————

TE started as ‘the only 8 people who could make it’ but has grown to have more demand than supply (a ‘good thing’ IMHO). However the process of selecting both the eight for the EB event and a standard-bearing three for the EO has not kept pace with this.

Is Doc B perfect? Universally I believe that’s agreed to be a ‘no’
Is Glicko perfect? Nick has qualified that to be a no

Is Doc B a good starting point for what could be further moulded into a really good, open and transparent process....?

From what I am reading here I think there is enough of a community willingness to trial it and improve it after each event. But until we start down this journey then collectively we will continue to leave TE exposed to the same problems of the past.

Would Doc B change how I approach the choice of team for each event? Or which events I attend? Not in the slightest. I’m a nerd, so I’ll nerd where and when I can and with whatever I feel like nerding with

[Joemanji]

Would Doc B change how I approach the choice of team for each event? Or which events I attend? Not in the slightest. I’m a nerd, so I’ll nerd where and when I can and with whatever I feel like nerding with

Given that it is gaming of the ELO rankings - of which you are perhaps the most egregious offender - that has led the committee to look for an alternative system in Glicko, this statement seems extraordinarily disingenuous.

[Pipey]

Arpad Elo (originator of Elo rankings):





ELO (Electric Light Orchestra):


Just saying...

[Purplegoo]

In terms of the move from bespoke forum to TFF, as I have stated a number of times this was NOT in response to not being selected per se but the manner in which the selection process was run by the Captain at the time, i.e. behind closed doors. The disappointment of Cardiff was short term, but not preventing it from happening again would have been ongoing. That is the reason I moved the discussion here.

Since I think I bought this up in the first place (I think / hope with all of the required asterisks to reinforce I was not being critical at any point?), fine, I will happily now accept the quoted passage as absolute fact. I think it amounts to much the same thing anyway. I mean, David did some things, had his reasons to do things, you didn't agree and unilaterally decided to do a thing that affected us all in response (because you considered it a good thing to do). I don't think that's practically any different to what I was suggesting, and I was careful to not infer that this was a spite-driven move that we should be critical of for that reason. I remain supportive of the destination.

That tangential point concluded to the satisfaction of all (I hope?), I still think the point I was making at the time of referencing this episode stands (that there really has not been any push for this that has not been artificially created). Evidently not everyone agrees, which is I suppose how we've ended up here. We will see if there is 'enough of a community willingness' in good time.

Joe has been typically direct, there. I wish he hadn't have been. That said, I do think there is a kernel of a fair, illustrative point. Geoff, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when we last met and shared a beer, you expressed the view that you care about the ELO rankings, indeed it is your intent to occupy three of the top five spots, or at least push your Dark Elves high up? I'd be surprised if you would claim that there aren't ways and means of occupying high up ELO spots that you're aware of / take advantage of. Wasn't your signature at one point to do with rank protectors anonymous, or something? The point that's been batted around about Glicko being similarly accessible to those that want to game it is a fair one to raise, with that in mind. If you're going to be aware of and optimise your ELO because it's there (and that's a fine thing to do if you want to do it - no judgement, especially while occupying the TD post), is TE not important enough to be tempted to approach global Glicko in a similar, gamey way? This 'there is enough subjectivity in the system for captains to get around clever maneuvering' point is willful closing of eyes, crossing of fingers and hoping for the best, if you ask me, and it'll just lead to more crossed words and anger when potential skipper 2021 tells positions 1-5 to sod off because they've tried to be too clever. If you set up a numerical system for people to excel in, they will try and excel in it. It will not be a good look to then tell them no.

But anyway. Too many words, I think Dan crushed it quite succinctly above. Hopefully it is clear throughout all of that that I'm not being negative, just exploring the discussion further. If not, I'll come back and insert plenty of smileys later.