Thursday, August 21, 2008

Demerit Thoughts

Thanks for the feedback on the Demerit rule.

The way I see it, there are four areas that require demerits for not doing your, well, duty:

1. not playing your games on time (and this includes sending instructions for mail games)
2. not reporting your results to your opponent and the webmaster
3. not sending results from games to your opponent (or not sending them to teams who used your computer for their games)
4. not getting your stats done

With regards to #1, this has only really been an issue this year with the Zapper. But it does bring up an interesting point: Is it fair to penalize a team who falls a game or two short of the goal the same as a team who is 100 games behind? I say it is not. I think we should adjust the penalty to reflect the difference. Something like... 1-20 games short of the goal = 1 demerit; 21-50 games short = 2 demerits; 50+ games short = 3 demerits.

And really, this shouldn't even be an issue as almost everybody has done a great job getting the games done on time. Unfortunately, the Zapper has been busy undergoing penile enhancement surgery and has been, therefore, unable to keep up with the torrid pace.

As for #2, this hasn't been much of an issue. All you have to do is email me the results of your series - not the stats. Please, I don't want your stats. But just email me and your opponent the W/L record of your series as soon as you finish playing it. Or CC me when you send your opponent his results. A series summary is great and makes nice copy on Big Innings, but isn't required. Just the records will do. It doesn't matter how you do it... just do it (A catchy slogan - it's a wonder it has never been used).

The biggest issue is #3. Let's ignore for a minute the games on your computer that don't involve your team. But in games you play, send stats immediately to your opponent. Easy enough, right? But if you don't, it shouldn't call for a demerit right away. For one thing, I won't know about it since you aren't required to send ME the stats. Right now if a team emails me that they are missing stats from you, I have been assigning a demerit as per the rule. Let's change that and do it like this: If you are missing stats from a team, first contact them and ask for the stats. If that doesn't solve the problem, email me and I'll contact the other team and ask for them. If that doesn't solve the problem, THEN a demerit is issued.

So, let's say the Fungoes and Wahoos play 5 netplay games at the Reservation. A week later the Fungoes haven't received the stats. Even though he knows he went 2-3, he needs the game files to do his stats. First, the Fungoes call or email the Wahoos and remind him he needs to send the stuff. If the Wahoos then send everything, all is well. If he does not, then the Fungoes call or email me. I'll call or email the Wahoos with a second reminder. If stats are sent then, cool. If not, a demerit is issued along with another reminder. And I think we could keep giving demerits until the guilty party gets off their lazy ass and takes care of business.

This way, the time frame is really up to the team waiting on the stats. If you played the games two months ago but just now remembered that you haven't received the stats, it doesn't matter. You contact the other team and if they send them, it's all good. This process probably would have saved the Rhinos from the buttload of demerits he got this summer.

As for games played between teams on a third team's computer, the Driller Dude is correct that it shouldn't be the laptop guy's responsibility. (Warpigs and Wahoos both get demerits here for acknowledging a good point by the DD.) If you play a game on someone else's laptop, either bring a flash drive or, at the very least, compile a file folder of the game files (or subsets or box scores or whatever you want) on the desktop of the laptop when you finish to make it easier for the laptop owner to send you the stuff you want. If you can email the folder to yourself right then, great. If that's not possible, at least the folder is ready to go and the laptop owner can send it to you later.

No issues yet for #4, of course, but be aware that it's 5 demerits for not getting your full stats turned in to the Chief on time. (By the way Zapper, the "Chief" is the Wahoos.)

And finally, the demerit consequences I listed on the previous entry seem pretty fair to me. I'll plan on switching the numbers on the Constitution if there are no objections.

And for the record, the decision we made at the draft this year was that the Demerit Rule passed with two conditions: 1) the consequences would not take affect until the 2009 season (for the 2010 draft), and 2) the exact numbers would be adjusted and ironed out during this season, which is what we are doing now.

Speak up if you have any objections to any of this. Your silence indicates approval. You can, of course, voice your approval too.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

So I think we are getting closer- good points to look at. Especially the ones about being one game vs. 100 short of the mark.
However- I still think there is a way that we can avoid a bulk of the problems relating to not getting the games played. We need to develop a system that when a team falls below the "minimum games needed threshold", a computer manager is sent out to enough teams to play games to get them to the minimum. I would suggest using the chronological order of our master schedule to determine which games get played to reach the minimum. (If two teams are below the threshold and are scheduled to play each other, the commish would load them and EQA). We could give the non-offending team a week to get the games played, and viola' - everyone is at least at the minimum at each checkpoint. If the offending teams get a month where they can knock out a bunch of games to get back in solid graces, great. If not, the next 30 games or whatever would be sent out at the end of the month and the process repeats.
Bottom line is, even if you pile up a mountain of demerits, we are probably still faced with the commish playing EQA games for the offending teams on October 1 (or later)- which is still the problem we are trying to solve.

Anonymous said...

what does Frank Viola have to with it???
ssws

Anonymous said...

I'd rather fix it in October than screw up shit during the year. I can see team A getting a CM one night, playing 2 games, then in the morning team B calls wanting to netplay and saying, "Fuck you! Those games don't count! I'm ready to play now!"

If they ain't done by the end of the year deadline, then commish eqa's with the HAL stock manager for the offending team and a owner customized CM for the non-offending team.

Then we boot both teams and the commish from the league for being useless fucks unworthy of any sympathy or understanding for letting this happen. NASOMA will then file suit in federal court seeking punitive damages to the tune of $100,000 payable to each non-offending member.

Following civil litigation, criminal cases will be filed with the understanding death is the minimum sentence.