Team England Charter Proposals *VOTING ENDED — SEE RESULTS*

[besters]

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.

This raises two questions for me:

1. How do you game the ELO rankings?
2. Why does Joe think he can speak for a committee of which he isn't a member?

would appreciate an understanding of both.

[Joemanji]

1. An example would be to parking your ranking by refusing to play a team once you hit a peak.
2. Merely reading along and following the arguments, happy to be corrected.

[Jip]

As an outsider and relative noob, is this same deep-dive of selection process and ‘he said, s/he said’ whataboutery likely to be occurring in the forums and WhatsApp groups of the other big Blood Bowl nations at the moment?

Can’t decipher from reading it all if the priority is for the best coaches, best process or just the best burn.

Optimistically, I’m just assuming there’s a lot of people wanting a system that results in the fantastic results that are already happening, anyway, but just with a little more transparency?

It’s really interesting reading, for sure, but I’m not sure if it’s particularly encouraging for those looking to join the fray.

Definitely not a dig, just think it’s lost the point a bit over the past few pages. I’ve seen Doc B pro’d and con’d so frequently that I’m now starting to wonder if he’s a really divisive coach that I just haven’t met yet!

[Barney the Lurker]

Can’t decipher from reading it all if the priority is for the best coaches, best process or just the best burn.

I think this is the crux of the questions around Doc B, what are we looking for, as a community, for Team England going forward.

I agree we have started to meander a bit over the lase couple of pages.

Personally, I cane see advantages in both systems and keep flip flopping between yes/no, so as a self declared outsider and relative noob, I think your thoughts on the pro's/con's of Doc B would be greatly appreciated!

[deeferdan]

Hi all.

Read the above with interest and been pondering my response for a while over the last week.
Cards on the table first, as things stand I’ll be supporting document A and opposing doc B
It’s been said before, but it would have been great to get this discussion going earlier and I would encourage the committee to consider pulling the vote and coming back to us in Jan with new itterations reflecting these (interesting) discussions.
Anyway, that’s not the priority...

Re doc B I have 2 main thoughts as follows:

1) I’m not a fan of the ranking selection in this format, in particular the ratio of wild cards to top 10 players. It seems too drastic a shift from the current process, is untested and it feels risky. In my opinion, we have 2 priorities that I give equal weight, better integration in TE AND maintaining the amazing results that TE have achieved over the last decade.
If we do go this route is there a way that particular events could be prioritised? I realise this is quite subjective, but could certain events be weighted for the sake of involvement. As mentioned previously it is well known that some events have much stronger line ups than others. Or does Glicko resolve this issue?

2) I feel the committee are really missing a trick with an alternative approach to inclusiveness and this is the TE Europen team. I’ve spoken about this previously here after being very fortunate to represent TE at Cardiff http://talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopi ... 85&t=45348
However, let’s be clear I did not get this opportunity on merit, I got it as part of a popular vote, I’d love to represent TE again, but only on merit. To me the vote approach to the open team is the wrong approach and should not be perpetuated. Instead TE should be striving to win both the classic and open event, we have a strong community of players, and 11 man squad is absolutely viable. Indeed it may allow for better integration of the proposed recruitment system using the top ranked players in to the current TE set up.

What I would have liked to see is something like the following:

- a selection process (perhaps the one proposed, perhaps proposal lite - ie less forced picks?) for a squad of 11 players who are willing to represent TE in both events
- a further process of selection after the initial (perhaps after the captain has had opportunity to get the group together) in which a final 8 and 3 are selected.
- TE smashing it at both Eurobowl events.

I recognise this would mean more work for the TE captain, but it would also achieve the aim of more inclusivity within the TE set up, wouldn’t it?

Completely understand that bringing in a different approach isn’t all that useful at this stage, but I think it is worthwhile to mention that there is more than one way to broaden involvement and promote inclusion in TE.

Lastly, for what it’s worth, I’m a big fan of publicly declaring interest to be part of TE, it’s important for the clarity of the process.

[Wobert]

Speaking as someone from the team that missed out by one vote at being the TE representatives at the last Europen . . . I agree with everything Deeferdan has said. I will never likely get as close to that to wearing a TE shirt again. However, what is the merit in making it a popularity contest? You may as well make it random draw!

It's a TE shirt, either its won with merit or it doesn't really hold that much value.

This doesn't have to be more headaches for the main TE captain. They pick their 7 colleagues and then an Open captain is picked to select 2 more.

[mubo]

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.

I'm not sure this is an accurate reading of discussion so far. Glicko rankings are broadly reasonable, though they need a large degree of subjectivity (re Dan/Wulfyn's point above) applied to choose the best 8. I think most people have flagged up very reasonable concerns with the system. Anyway- we'll see how it shakes out! As a committee member, I'll be asking a captain to provide full justification of their selections regardless of the details of the process.

--

@Deefer and @wobert, this is something we have discussed, but timelines make it very tricky for Europen. I'm delighted to hear there is appetite for a EO TE team. This is something we would like to do, but generally after the TE selection, many people have already formed themseleves into EO teams, making an official TE difficult. It would need widespread buy-in I think. It's under consideration though! The more people that express an interest the more likely it becomes.

There has been a bit of discussion around "regional boosting" of glicko rankings. This is essentially impossible to do without imposing some sort of prior on the strength of a region, a subjective measure if you will. The alternative is to build a tournament system where players of similar rankings play each other more.

[Pipey]

If I could add a bit more on EurOpen and the proposal (for now at least) to continue with a community vote from candidate teams.

I’m going to suggest that last year was very much an after-the-event process i.e. teams had already formed with no knowledge that there would be an official English EO team. There was also a pretty low turnout if I recall.

We would also use the instant run-off voting if there were more than two candidate teams, which I think would help.

Basically I think this could me much better with more planning.

Popularity vote? All of our elections can potentially fall foul of that, whether it is for the captain or committee members. For my part I would hope that with the committee and community’s prior backing, with a clear stated aim of looking for the strongest possible team, that voters would not approach this as a popularity contest.

There was considerable discussion about EO. Between us we decided that this was the best way to go for now at least. As Nick says this can be discussed further; it is early days for the EO team concept so we can see how things pan out.

[besters]

In my opinion, we have 2 priorities that I give equal weight, better integration in TE AND maintaining the amazing results that TE have achieved over the last decade.

I would agree entirely with this statement.

[besters]

1. An example would be to parking your ranking by refusing to play a team once you hit a peak.
2. Merely reading along and following the arguments, happy to be corrected.

Thanks for the clarification Joe! Can I ask why you see your parking example as an issue? My thought is that if you achieve something within the rankings you are likely to want to take a break from that team. Plus given the number of races, it can take a while to cover other interests. I have played all 26 races and I play 7 or 8 races a year, so even with just rotation it can take a while, as an example, I haven't played any stunties since 2015.

[Pipey]

I think a lot of people look at the Elo rankings as a kind of “race to the highest score”. It reflects that more than it does a genuine ranking of who is most successful/consistent with a particular race at a particular time. I think scores are sometimes "parked" when they get to a certain level. This sort of behaviour is probably more common than some care to admit! I know I am quite proud of my scores when they get high, and I try to increase them / defend them, for sure. Podfrey does love to massage his rankings though, that’s undeniable! Whether it’s egregious / disingenuous that’s another matter. #not-a-burn

[straume]

Just one question on what (to me) seems like a mistake in Doc A:

Announce the Team England Team in May seems awfully late. At this stage registration for EurOpen might be closed. As far as I know for EB2020: Registration for Eurobowl will be January to March and Europen February to April.

I think you would be wise to pick the team (regardless of how) quite a bit earlier. For reference the French team is selected before Christmas (for those interested head over to teamfrancebb.com to check out the process). Danish EB team is selected January 1st. Even the Norwegian team will be picked by the end of January so that anyone wanting to go to Poland has ample time to organise themselves. As a side note I could also mention that I assume the late date for picking the team is part of why AndyDavo never came close to TE (as the Welsh had alreday picked him up).

[Podfrey]

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.

I don’t see how it’s disingenuous. I have never shied away from liking a ranking (Rankaholics Anonymous); nerding = ranking (to me). How much more honest can I be?? My approach of taking a team that stands a reasonable chance in a given tournament format (and, conversely, not taking one that doesn’t) is no different to what I imagine the majority of other coaches do.

As for ‘parking’, unfortunately I can’t play as often as I like and therefore not using Zons/Dwarves is the unfortunate side effect of my current (publicly) stated objective of getting a third team in the top 5. After WC my Dwarves have been nudged out so expect to see them at a tournament or two somewhere in the next 12 months to get them back in there.

[Geggster]

The system represented in doc B appears to have many people satisfied – and what seems to me, as many people unhappy.

It’s clear that there are limitations, some significant, but it’s inarguable that it is capable of creating a rough order of ability. Certainly more objective than the eye-test we have presently.

It’s also abundantly clear to me it will change behaviour. Nerds love a list – nerds love to compete by any metric they can find. I can think of many coaches that will see this ranking as a personal mission to champion. By perhaps limiting themselves to the very best teams, others by deliberately targeting smaller events at the exclusion of more competitive ones (the oft-cited French dilemma). It baffles me that people here think that humans will suddenly stop responding to incentives.

The question here is not – is the system more objective than the old eye-test? Or will behaviour change? But instead are we prepared for behaviour to change for the improvement in objectivity?

For me – it’s a resounding no. I see a situation where let’s say Podfrey, Pipey, Purplegoo, Joemanji and PeteW are top 10 on that list. Were I to captain that year, this might easily be my first 5 names (apologies to anyone that thinks they should be in that 5, but these five represent a mixture of ability, desire and proliferousness to make the 10 - but sure you can replace any of those with your favourite terrific player) and I then pick 2/3 wildcards based on whether I played. How much more representative of the community is the team going to be under this system? How does Yogi feel ascending to 7th for me to overlook him for Purplegoo who finished 9th and then DonVito as WC, for example that finished 17th through fewer games, but I feel can smash out a performance with dwarves? Yogi now can feel objectively miffed. And am I prepared to show up to NottsBowl on a grim Sunday to see an abundance of TE hopefuls rocking WE, DE and Undead, and in response a plethora of middling coaches that have brought top tiers too for fear of obliteration – and the following year the same event either curiously missing some of those that got smashed previous event or now using exclusively using Undead and WE themselves?

The elephant in the room is the Podfrey Problem (I’m going to cite Geoff, but could be anyone that is considered to be terrific by many but misses out – I also love alliteration). I don’t remember a year that I wouldn’t have picked Podfrey. It’s typically been good friends of mine that have made this call – and they already know how I feel about this. I don’t recall if Geoff was quite available for every single year and he certainly had some low-game output years, but his omittance has ranged, to me, from eek, that’s borderline to pretty controversial.

Perhaps this system provides enough objectivity that someone like Geoff cannot be overlooked? Perhaps there will be observable accountability? But any captain will still have the option of not choosing any player, regardless of how good the rest of the community objectively or subjectively view them. The system for me therefore is barely better than we have presently and certainly not worth the push to powergaming that the whole community will witness.

[the beanbag]

<pops head above castle masonry>

I neither have the time nor the experience to go full Tolstoy in this post, so this will be both brief and not in Russian.

TE have been very, very successful over the past few years so the biggest reason for voting no to Document B for me is why change a winning system?

I've seen it pointed out that the last Eurobowl team - discounting ineligible players for their various reasons - would have been the same using the proposed new system. Is this justification for maintaining the status quo or for moving to a new system to try and make TE a more expansive, inclusive group, allowing new coaches to taste sweet sweet Euro joy as well?

I don't know (sorry I forgot to engage "rhetorical" mode).

Aside from numbers and rankings and maths I don't understand - what's wrong with subjectively picking a team from pretty much the best coaches of that year (which if I understand it changes little over time regardless of ranking system, if you take into account that the TE selectors also actually know the coaches in the frame), if that team is based on the underlying principles that they will work as a cohesive unit, powered by camaraderie as well as BB skill? That's fluffy I know, but we're not robots.

Lastly, thanks for the hard work of the committee in putting all this together and actually making this matter important and interesting enough for this usually disinterested nerd to pipe up.

<lowers head slowly back below the crenellations>