Team England Charter Proposals *VOTING ENDED — SEE RESULTS*

[deeferdan]

Big fan of Beanbag, and Gegg’s thoughts above. What feels like Change for the sake of change is not favourable, this debate though is really good - and I don’t think it should be considered a failure if the final consensus is that actually what we are doing at the moment works just fine.

However, to flog a dead horse, that’s why I think the most desirable change would be a more formal European team to improve integration. 3 more spots picked with a clear aim of being as successful as the main TE group and as a squad of 11, what’s not to like?

Straume’s point about timing is also an important one, pulling everything forward to a January decision would be a pretty straight forward way of resolving the issue of getting the collective picked and entered into both events with plenty of time to finalise the line ups before the summer.

[Wulfyn]

Also in agreement with deeferdan's point. I thought the thing that most sparked all of these TE changes was showcasing a route into the full team. Yet neither Doc A or B has any mention of it. I understand the comment from committee members that they did not feel like this was a priority, but I would encourage them to go back and read the thread from which the committee was created. This is more your mandate than anything. And I think that deeferdan's proposal is a simple way to do that.

I also would like to make 2 quick comments:

1. The issue I have is not with a more objective system, but rather that my belief is that this system does not achieve that. There are too many subjective considerations (and I exampled a very simple one that rose me 8 places). I do not accept that we should just try it out, because whilst it could make it better it could also make it worse, and given 5 wins in a row chances are far more towards the latter. This is change for the sake of change. Yes to a more objective system, but this is not fit for purpose.

2. For what it is worth I have already changed my behaviour. I've dropped all but 2 overseas tournaments for next year to attend more UK ones. I am targetting tournaments which will maximise my rankings (and as someone that does know the maths of glicko I believe this gives me an advantage, as does a lack of family pressure, and a disposable income to spend on nerding - sorry PeteW, this system screws you). Also I am never going to risk an experimental or less competitive team. I am betting that the committee are happy to impose a system that unfairly punishes me for 2 joke teams, so I'll not be taking that risk ever again! Even if Doc B fails I think there is enough of a push that a captain will either love this system and use it, or have to defend their selection against the rankings. The cat is out of the bag.

I'm probably going to be far more focused in games as well - sorry all. :-/

[speedingbullet]

I'm probably going to be far more focused in games as well - sorry all. :-/

No need to apologise, this could be seen as a step in the right direction. There is nothing more frustrating than being beaten by someone who isn't concentrating, has taken a joke team that can be good but is highly variable, but gets some good dice and smashes your own team into the ground!

[PeteW]

(and as someone that does know the maths of glicko I believe this gives me an advantage, as does a lack of family pressure, and a disposable income to spend on nerding - sorry PeteW, this system screws you).

I'll just have to chum up to the captains to get one of the precious wildcards...

[mawph]

A bit of a ramble coming up with some of my thoughts having read through the preceding pages:

I think I am less worried than most about the impact on the tournament scene. I took my strongest race to a small local tournament (Screaming Spires) this year- and I don't _think_ I impacted anyone's experience negatively(!?). I don't get to many tournaments at the moment- so if I have 5 a year I'll choose a top race at a competitive tournament. If I attend SS next year- this qualification would mean I would probably take my strongest race- but as someone on the fringe of TE I recognise that as a choice/compromise I make.

Some outrageous behaviour that toppled my challenge for back to back tournament wins (should've powergamed with Norse again ) and pushed me to third when you brought Nippy along for good measure also
The thing to note here, in my opinion, is that having experienced players turn up at newer tournaments is only a good thing. Worrying about beating up newbies shouldn't be an issue for most of those Team England regulars, nor the fringe folk that I've played - if its Newbies, generally there's a good atmosphere. The ultra-competition is more likely to kick in against people around the fringe too, who could probably do with the competitive edge. In fact; its the reason I go to the Waterbowl each year (it's not the free lifetime pass, honest!) as I'm more likely to hit up a string of top quality players. My first game ever against Goo was G5 in my first year, as I plummeted down the tables from Table 2. It might make it harder for me to rank highly, but that's the drag. The benefit to me is the more challenging games and the learning experience

What would my score be without the results of the 2 joke underworld teams I played last year? One was a double ball and chain star team at NAF, and the other was an All-the-skills team at Pearlies. I didn't realise these two decisions to blow off some steam would affect my TE chances for the rest of time.

I did all 5 big European team tournaments and went 16/7/6. I did 2 smaller UK tournaments and went 7/3/0. And that only just offset the 2 joke tournaments.

I'm sure others are in the same position.

Not necessarily the right quote, but combines well with one higher on this page: Whether in black & white, or in a captain's mind, the ELO and Glicko rankings are out there (whether race specific, or in total - damn my doing badly with Khemri, before a good run with Norse). These will always be cause for consternation when someone with maybe a lower ranking (in a race) gets picked to play ahead of someone with a higher ranking. If I suddenly got very into tournaments with a view to qualifying for TE, it looks like I'm at a disadvantage for my lower ranking in the past caused by lack of playing time/not taking things as seriously all the time, learning curves, etc. etc. These two sentences show that the ability to pick from lists still exists and is an advantage for someone is on the cusp (if a captain were considering picking you, they ought to be thinking about things like joke set ups, plus you've probably talked about team choices at tournaments to whoever is going to be captain too), but still doesn't stop top 10 players (like geoff) getting benched on captain's gut instinct - whether that is for another top10, or an outsider. I'm not sure how much it changes (unless I've misread/misunderstood anything...)
Another point is that foreign tournaments are very useful. I learned a fair amount getting bashed in Copenhagen. The ATV is similarly intended to Thrud's rules, yet the sort of teams and their compositions are quite different at the two. The Danish Open was intense throughout, even though I occupied the lower reaches of the tables. Similarly, reading Goo's travel blog, I suspect the Spanish have a different style also. Having travelled, or listened to the travelling is going to be useful when playing against other nations. Yes, they might well be doing similar and bringing an "English meta", rather than a "Danish Open meta", or "Spanish meta", but being prepared for what you're about to face is important (and I'm hoping to go back to Copenhagen again sometime so I can prove that my "aiming for top 10" comment that I made while there, wasn't as odd as it sounded as I was placed towards the bottom...)

In summary, while it seems like a big bang, I'm not sure how much really changes. Will people try to game the new system: probably. Will it change behaviours: probably for some. If I were pushing to get into Team England, I'd want to be ensuring that I played and won as many games in as many tournaments as was possible, regardless of whether we were under new or old systems. Personally I'd be targeting tournaments where I could build confidence with teams/rosters, then moving onto tournaments that I knew would be frequented by other good players. That might not get me the best Glicko, but if I ended up learning enough to consistently match up against other TE/national players, I'd expect that would get me in with a shout regardless.

I might be idealistically inclined in my thinking here and this might be from someone who acknowledges they don't have the time to get up to TE standard, but that's the sketch.

[Pipey]

Quick point of order on this one Dan:

I understand the comment from committee members that they did not feel like this [the EurOpen team] was a priority, but I would encourage them to go back and read the thread from which the committee was created.

To be clear, we never made this comment. It was a priority and was discussed at length. And we also certainly did read the forum topics on the matter, taking detailed notes in fact.

In case anyone were to read your post and get the wrong idea.

Just to say I think this has been a cracking, intelligent debate. One to be proud of. Hopefully folks are ready to vote, with that kicking off from tomorrow. If you still have things you want to discuss then please carry on with the chat.

Also to agree with other Dan (deefer)... the process (community having their say) is as important as the outcome (e.g. how we decide to do selection), so I certainly wouldn't see this as a failure, whatever is voted for.

[Pipey]

Voting is open as of now.

A reminder of how to vote:

Vote by sending a private message on TFF to Sann0638. Send a single PM containing your choices for the two votes: Vote A and Vote B. Please identify yourself with your NAF name.

-Proxy votes are not allowed
-You must be an English NAF member who has played a tournament in the last 12 months in order to vote
-The committee and current captain are eligible to vote
-Please use the below text template for your PM


Vote for Team England Structure (A) and Selection (B)
My NAF name =
Vote A = [YES or NO]
Vote B = [YES or NO]

Voting ends at midnight on Sunday November 17th.

[spleggy]

Hmm lots of food for thought here.

Ideally we would want a system that is fair, transparent and gives aspiring TE coaches a defined thing to shoot for. I don't think either system fully answers that question (if it can even be answered) but I can't say I have something better in mind. Also lets not forget that metrics drive behaviour.

What I like about Glicko ratings is that a coach has to be active. I do agree that's important. The decision to exclude stunties although arbitrary has merit. Am I right in assuming the combined ranking is the sum of all games (excluding stunties) as opposed to the sum of all racial rankings? The latter would particularly penalise someone who has played many different races with varying levels of success either for fun or on their way to the 26.

As a general observation, there's a lot of necessary leeway in any system and there's always going to be people that weren't happy with the outcome.

I can't remember who said it but there was a comment about how TE started as eligible coaches who could make it. It's now a highly competitive situation where I'd suggest dozens of aspiring coaches are chasing a relatively small number of spots on TE and EVEN IF they get into the the top 10 (with whatever measure is used) then they won't necessarily be picked.

There perhaps needs to be a intermediate stage. Has anyone considered a county (not countRy) based competition before? Perhaps that's a thought for a different thread?

[gcoleman76]

I know that I'm not a TE player, having pinned my colours to my mother's country instead, however has a qualification period been considered?

This to me would perhaps be the compromise for the doc b debate. Rather than looking at peak glicko over a 12 month period you run the qualification period for a shorter 4-6 month period. Once that period is over then you have 6-8 months to play the less competitive rosters.

The thing about this would be you could move the qualification period each cycle so it wouldn't always affect the racial make up at the same tournaments each year.

Tough decision for you all however. And for sure whichever you all decide TE will still be strong.

[Wulfyn]

Quick point of order on this one Dan:

I understand the comment from committee members that they did not feel like this [the EurOpen team] was a priority, but I would encourage them to go back and read the thread from which the committee was created.

To be clear, we never made this comment. It was a priority and was discussed at length. And we also certainly did read the forum topics on the matter, taking detailed notes in fact.

In case anyone were to read your post and get the wrong idea.

Really?

Because you said this in your vision for TE during the vote:

-We need to integrate EO and EB such that taking part in either event involves representing England. At the current rate of growth the next EurOpen could be twice the size of EB and arguably a harder event to win. An English win at EO (so far not achieved, perhaps incongruous given our Eurobowl dominance) should be a firm aim and we should value both tournaments equally. I'd like to see an official EurOpen Team England."

http://talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopi ... &start=120

[PeteW]

Having spent a very enjoyable weekend playing vampires at a tournament, I once again felt compelled to post, hopefully to sway those who may not have voted, and are still considering the argument for Doc B.

Camdub is a wonderful tournament, with a wacky ruleset, and gives a great opportunity to try new things and have a lot of fun, playing against a lot of nice coaches. I had a great time, and at no point did I genuinely care about my ranking (although there may have been some joking that when I lost to Ogres it wouldn't count against my global glicko!).

What the tournament wasn't, however, was a good opportunity to assess TE potential. I may have miscounted, but I think there were 5 TE capped players at the tournament, but none of the games would have given any real information about future TE potential for anyone there. (And neither was it supposed to!) However, my 4/1/0 glicko-rated games, would actually push me up the rankings! Which is crazy.

Doc B is flawed, not because it puts some objective data in the mix, but because it puts poor objective data in the mix.

My suggestion
If I was captain, I would use objective data to assess potential TE candidates. I would mine the NAF page for candidate's games against previous Eurobowl-capped coaches (worldwide) or against all coaches who have at least one NAF ranking over 200 (to pick a number out of thin air). I would then assess their performance against notable coaches. I might go further and strip out games involving uncompetitive races in those specific rulesets. I might also give extra weighting to games played at high-stakes tournaments. I would then use this data to see who can hold up against top euro-coaches, and who can't. I would be able to see who has pitted themselves against the best, and who has no experience of it.

My concern with Doc B is that if 10 young, single people, with sufficient disposable income decide to visit a small, local bloodbowl tournament each week or so, and smash up 6 TR150 coaches, they will all be in the top 10 global glicko, and 5 or 6 would have to be picked from there. The coaches who have visited to euro locations, and got hard fought results (including crucial draws) against brilliant frenchies or italians, would not make the top 10 as their win % would be lower and their attendance lower. This would result in a team that failed at EB.

Doc B is too easy, for those who are able, to completely game. If only 1 or 2 game it, then they can be subjectively removed under Doc B, but if many do it, then it compromises TE.

My suggestion does want we actually want TE hopefuls to do. We want them to visit tough tournaments like the Waterbowl, or to travel to Lutece, and test themselves against the best. They will improve, and we will be able to measure on skill. Whether this could be codified objectively, or would better function, as we have now, as a subjective encouragement, I'm not sure. But that is not the decision on the table. We are voting on Doc B, and for the reasons above, I would encourage you to vote "No" to Doc B, and then the committee can work on another, better, plan.

I am not against a degree of objectiveness, but it needs to be good! If I was captain, I would want to see coaches putting themselves up against top notch Euros, and holding their ground. A draw against Justicium's necro is worth more to me than a 6/0/0 with dark elves in a local tournament out in the sticks. (Or a 4/1/0 at Camdub!)

[sann0638]

I would ask Mike nicely for analysis of a candidate's games against previous Eurobowl-capped coaches (worldwide) or against all coaches who have at least one NAF ranking over 200 (to pick a number out of thin air).

[sann0638]

Quotes

These quotes are a bit odd? You're saying committee don't think Europen is a priority, Pipey says he never said this, you've provided a quote saying he thinks it is a priority?

[Purplegoo]

You might want to change the thread title, chaps. It's being cut unfortunately short on some of the post headers. I mean, I'm OK with 'Re: Team England Committee Charter Proposals *PLEASE VOTE NO' as a message, but even so.

Pete has outlined a method by which some of our recent captains have approached part of their selection process. I know I did a version of that in my two years. There is subjectivity in it because you have to decide what you're ruling in / out in terms of rulesets / opponents / viable races (and as such, the captain does it, rather than asking Mike or anyone else, actually), but it's a perfectly solid way of approaching part of the job, if you want to go about it that way (importantly, the current structure offers captains the means to construct their own methodology and use that as a sales point if they so choose, which I consider a good thing. I think this flexibility is not all bad, and it's a shame it's not been highlighted more in the debate).

Re: 'better plans', I would hope we're not just going to keep voting on things until we get something to pass. This is the proposal; change or no change for the foreseeable, right? It would be disappointing / exhausting to have ongoing wrangling.

[Pipey]

You might want to change the thread title, chaps. It's being cut unfortunately short on some of the post headers. I mean, I'm OK with 'Re: Team England Committee Charter Proposals *PLEASE VOTE NO' as a message, but even so.

OK so I need to change it to please vote YESterday, right?

Fixed now I hope. Let me know if any more problems.

All votes gratefully appreciated, whether no or yes