Amendments to Aspiring Tier Criteria - and NEW POLL

An informal group of proven reliable players attempting to avoid games spoiled by missed orders.

Moderators: Fatmo, JonS, Buachaille

Should admission to the Aspiring Tier be tightened to require that the player has never surrendered?

Poll ended at 05 Sep 2014, 00:52

Yes, for the "less than 5 games played category" but not for the "more than 5 games category".
8
44%
Yes regardless of number of games played, Aspiring Membership should not be available for more than 5 games.
3
17%
No, the criteria are fine as they stand.
7
39%
 
Total votes : 18

Re: Amendments to Aspiring Tier Criteria - and NEW POLL

Postby gareth66 » 01 Sep 2014, 19:32

AlmanMEin wrote:I voted for Option A, but I want to explain and add a caveat.

I endorse A so as to avoid having someone qualify for Aspiring for having one game out of 4 go well while bailing on the other three. Those surrenders should matter as much as they would later for the other levels.


Actually that's not quite what the criteria for Aspiring membership provide for. They require that the last 1 game played is not surrendered from, so in that respect it works the same as for any of the other levels already. Bronze requires no surrenders in your last 5, but before that you can have surrendered from your previous 105 and it would not matter.

Aspiring is the same, it's just that the number of games since your last surrender is 1 not 5. So introducing this change will have the effect of putting Aspiring membership onto a tougher footing than the rest, and introduces a principle that it is not just your last x games that matter, it is your overall history. For me, if we did this at Aspiring level then we should absolutely look to address that point at the higher levels too.
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Amendments to Aspiring Tier Criteria - and NEW POLL

Postby Alman » 02 Sep 2014, 02:11

Gareth, thank you for that clarification and perspective. That helps me wrap my brain around it. I guess emotionally I feel stronger about only one finished game out of a bunch of recent surrenders, but you are correct on the numbers.

I guess that for the other levels, even if there had been 105 surrenders in the past, the pile of finished games in a row builds more confidence for me then the 1 completed in the face of a recent past of games. Am I correct that a member at one of the "metal" levels who has an unjustified surrender would be bounced back to start (Aspiring) after their next finished game?

Taking that all into account, on one level you move me more toward leaving things as is, but I still struggle with a one game "track record" against a history of recent surrenders. Especially considering that most Classicist games have been including Aspiring.

I'm probably concerned about something that isn't even an issue and if so I apologize for arguing the point. :) So, last question, IF there was an issue of someone seeming to "abuse" the Aspiring level by getting in even though they have an ongoing surrender issue (repeatedly need to be readmitted to Aspiring), is there a mechanism to avoid that (if it even ever is an issue)? And perhaps I need to go back and read the founding documents again. I apologize if I'm being ignorant here. :)
Bronze Member: The Classicists & Oldies
War in the Americas 7 PbF

"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" -Kosh
"Nothing has to be true, but everything has to sound like it was." -Salvor Hardin
User avatar
Alman
 
Posts: 1954
Joined: 04 Feb 2014, 22:04
Location: Beautiful Maine, USA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1466)
All-game rating: (1586)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Amendments to Aspiring Tier Criteria - and NEW POLL

Postby gareth66 » 02 Sep 2014, 09:56

How about adding an overall surrender rate requirement at all levels:

Aspiring: Overall surrender rate no more than 50% in both categories;
Bronze: Overall surrender rate no more than 70%;
Silver: Overall surrender rate no more than 80%;
Gold: Overall surrender rate no more than 90%;
Platinum: Overall surrender rate no more than 95%.

These in addition to the current "no surrenders in last x games" rules that already exist?

This would have the affect on Aspiring that if you have played, say, 4 games, then not only must your last game be surrender-free, but you can have no more than 2 surrenders total. And if you have played 20 games but don't qualify for Bronze, then in addition to your last 4 being surrender-free you would also have to have no more than 10 surrenders overall for admission to Aspiring in the "more than 4 games category".

Knock on into Bronze and above, the player who surrendered from 105 games but then played 5/10/15/20 games without surrender would still not be eligible to join until he had at least 105 games without surrendering, at which point he would get to 50% overall and become eligible for Aspiring membership.

Maybe that's a bit harsh actually, maybe the numbers need looking at (30%, 50%, 70%, 90%, 95%?) but what do folks think about this as a concept in principle?

The other way of dealing with the problem of "3 surrenders then 1 no-surrender" for Aspiring is to raise the requirement for Aspiring to last 2 games rather than last 1 game.

Views?
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Amendments to Aspiring Tier Criteria - and NEW POLL

Postby Alman » 03 Sep 2014, 23:35

That's an intriguing idea, but I agree that those initial percentages are probably too harsh. I think as your "x number of games w/o a surrender" climbs, the percentage matters not as much since with few exceptions it will take awhile to accumulate such a record which really, to me, demonstrates the reliability. I would hate (now I'm arguing on the other side I think :? ) for someone who has truly reformed to be penalized and kept out for a past that has been left behind. Same with the NMR rate. Some sort of temporal "clean slate" that recognizes that some players need to mature either as people or as players (or both). :)

Just my thoughts. :)
Bronze Member: The Classicists & Oldies
War in the Americas 7 PbF

"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" -Kosh
"Nothing has to be true, but everything has to sound like it was." -Salvor Hardin
User avatar
Alman
 
Posts: 1954
Joined: 04 Feb 2014, 22:04
Location: Beautiful Maine, USA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1466)
All-game rating: (1586)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Amendments to Aspiring Tier Criteria - and NEW POLL

Postby gareth66 » 03 Sep 2014, 23:39

Yes, it's starting to feel as if we may do better leaving things as they now are. Will leave the poll open for another 24 hours or so and then we need to evaluate to what extent there is a mandate for (or interest in) making any further changes.
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Amendments to Aspiring Tier Criteria - and NEW POLL

Postby Alman » 03 Sep 2014, 23:55

That sounds like wisdom Gareth. I often can find myself trying to solve problems that don't exist and when I do that I usually cause more grief than I fix! :D :lol:

BTW, appreciate the discussion and all you and M.R.'s work on this stuff. You guys add a lot of value to the site. Thanks!
Bronze Member: The Classicists & Oldies
War in the Americas 7 PbF

"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote" -Kosh
"Nothing has to be true, but everything has to sound like it was." -Salvor Hardin
User avatar
Alman
 
Posts: 1954
Joined: 04 Feb 2014, 22:04
Location: Beautiful Maine, USA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1466)
All-game rating: (1586)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Amendments to Aspiring Tier Criteria - and NEW POLL

Postby sinnybee » 04 Sep 2014, 05:00

In my opinion, we should honor the majority vote of "Yes" in this poll, but that beyond that, everything should be left the same.
As I said in the other thread, I think the bronze, silver, gold, and platinum requirements are good as they have been for the last several years.
Gold Classicist since 1-11-11
FT Asst GM of 35 player WWIV Aug 2011-Feb 2012
#1 ranked player of playdip early 2013
4th highest forum karma count at Apr 2013 ending (behind Craw, Dipsy, and Rick)
Tournament Director of the 31 game PDVT Feb-Dec 2014, the first playdip tourney with over 100 sign-ups
User avatar
sinnybee
 
Posts: 6087
Joined: 03 Sep 2010, 07:01
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1332)
All-game rating: (1467)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Amendments to Aspiring Tier Criteria - and NEW POLL

Postby gareth66 » 05 Sep 2014, 07:48

It's very marginal this. Sinny is right that there is a majority - given that both options 1 and 2 provide for making the discussed change at the "less than 5 games" level, there were 11 votes out of 18 in favour of doing this. However, the Classicist Constitution stipulates that a two thirds majority is required in order to enact a change.

As the mandate for making this change is not that clear-cut, and as making this change by itself does not sit comfortably for the reasons I've already outlined (if we're going to introduce the concept of looking at game history further back than the x surrender-free games required at a particular level, then it does not make sense to do this for only one tier).

I am therefore going to close this particular poll by ruling that there is an insufficient mandate for making a quite significant change and put this thread as currently constituted to bed. It may be, however, that Mortiferus Rosa might wish to pursue this further.
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Amendments to Aspiring Tier Criteria - and NEW POLL

Postby Antigonos » 05 Sep 2014, 15:38

[code][/code]
Mortiferus Rosa wrote:I voted for option 2 and here is why. I personally view the Aspiring Classicists as a step ladder for new players who just dont have the games under their belt to qualify for Bronze membership.

Edit: Also, considering the current requirements (as posted above)... would it really kill them to play one more game without surrendering and just join in at bronze?


I would vote for and support any rule change that would require that there be no surrenders for Aspiring Classicists and in general am in favor of any tightening / toughening of the rules regarding surrenders.
Classicists Platinum, Oldies & soldier in Cavalry to the rescue
Samnites 3 draw Ad Arma
Prussia draw Ambition & Empire
USSR in 3 draw Blitzkrieg[
England solo Renaissance
Germany in 6 draw World Influence
Athens 4 draw Greek City States
Zaire solo Africa
Iran 3 draw ModEX II
Antigonos
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 02:30
Location: New York
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1483)
All-game rating: (1517)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Amendments to Aspiring Tier Criteria - and NEW POLL

Postby sinnybee » 06 Sep 2014, 00:19

I forgot about the Classicist Constitution stipulation that a two thirds majority is required in order to enact a change, sorry.
Gold Classicist since 1-11-11
FT Asst GM of 35 player WWIV Aug 2011-Feb 2012
#1 ranked player of playdip early 2013
4th highest forum karma count at Apr 2013 ending (behind Craw, Dipsy, and Rick)
Tournament Director of the 31 game PDVT Feb-Dec 2014, the first playdip tourney with over 100 sign-ups
User avatar
sinnybee
 
Posts: 6087
Joined: 03 Sep 2010, 07:01
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1332)
All-game rating: (1467)
Timezone: GMT-7

PreviousNext

Return to Classicists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests