Lowball rule

[usagi]

Hi! How about this;

If a player has 0 wins, he is automatically demoted.

Or, less than 4 wins. Some small number.

The idea being, if a player can only get a very small number of wins BUT has enough points not to be demoted, he isn't teaching much, and should be filtered down to a place where he can not only be taught, but teach as well. I think this would help the league.

[topazg]

My only question is "why?"

This is only a good idea if you already subscribe to your view that the divisions are imbalanced, and that those with poor records deserve to demote. If it applies to so few people, it feels like an added complexity that won't serve enough of a purpose - how many of those 6 or 7 in the last month would not have been kicked or demoted anyway?

[usagi]

My only question is "why?"

This is only a good idea if you already subscribe to your view that the divisions are imbalanced, and that those with poor records deserve to demote. If it applies to so few people, it feels like an added complexity that won't serve enough of a purpose - how many of those 6 or 7 in the last month would not have been kicked or demoted anyway?

For example; last month diletta (gamma I) had 9.75 points with a record of 0/13, while bearfreak (gamma IV) had 13.75 points with a 7/6 record; yet diletta was promoted and bearfreak was not. I find this odd.

Maybe what I am really asking is for promotions to be handled with a keen eye to balancing the league. One of stalkor's concerns that he shared with me, regarding making rooms like "Beta-Asia", "Beta-Europe" etc. is that rooms would become imbalanced. I think we have that problem now, and therefore some sort of lowball rule where you need 4 wins or more to be considered for a promotion is probably warranted. A quick glance at their records in the first week of November's league seems to confirm the suspicion that the wrong promotion was made.

JMO

[stalkor]

no, you have to treat every class the same because its unfair to say that 3rd and 4th and 5th placed of one class gets promoted where only top 2 in another gets promoted in another class because I (or another admin who is making the new month) think that player is "better"

if someone with a bad record gets promoted its the fault of the OTHER players to not get over that number of points, not the systems faults.

[topazg]

For example; last month diletta (gamma I) had 9.75 points with a record of 0/13, while bearfreak (gamma IV) had 13.75 points with a 7/6 record; yet diletta was promoted and bearfreak was not. I find this odd.

That's partly luck of the draw. Take your Beta II division this month - Is it fair that shindon, on 2-3 and 6.5 points in Beta I is on target for promotion in 2nd place, whereas lebertran, on 5-1 and in 5th place (!) with 11 points in Beta II is 3 positions off promotion?

diletta would not have been promoted if bearfreak was in his division, and vice versa, but the divisions are what they are. Sometimes they are active, sometimes they are not, and until a convincing argument is made that this is a controllable issue (which may be possible, but the case still hasn't been made for it) that's something that will remain an issue.

At least the system rewarded bearfreak's performance with 50% more points than diletta's. The fact that diletta made the time to get as many games in as possible despite having a generally inactive division is a bigger factor for me than his playing strength.

I think we have that problem now, and therefore some sort of lowball rule where you need 4 wins or more to be considered for a promotion is probably warranted.

I don't see the logic here. Because we have people of varied activity in different divisions, we should force people to have to win 4 games regardless of the activity level of their division? I'm not sure how that can logically be drawn from the issue in question. I know you find it incomprehensible that someone without a win could "earn" promotion, but I still suspect you haven't yet gotten your head around how we, at the moment, want the division to operate - we don't see this as a flaw, we see activity as being valued higher than strength, so 0-13 is a much better record to us than 4-0, because it represents a greater level of league participation. When we have a league full of very active players, it will start ordering by strength as well as reward activity, as we are already seeing in Alpha -> Beta generally. You need to allow this transitional period to work its way through.

A quick glance at their records in the first week of November's league seems to confirm the suspicion that the wrong promotion was made.

No it doesn't! Both players have played over a game a day so far, so both players are active enough to be worthy of promotion. They are both more active, in fact, than last month. The fact that their W/L records are vastly different is not relevant to whether the promotion was "correct". The ASR ethos is not "strongest players at the top" (at least, this is very much a secondary driver to highly active and engaged players), even if you think that's the way things should be. You still don't seem to have properly understood what the ASR is aiming for. If you think that's a flaw in the system that's fine, it's your opinion, but that doesn't therefore mean that in situations like this, the wrong promotion has been made.