A thought on scoring

[bartman]

My view on the original idea is that if changes are made for good reasons then that's fine. But I'd hesitate to embrace a change that was designed for the reason to reward teams that don't post their full complement of articles in any match?

That's why we have a team structure and a ladder isn't it, to measure team performance? If a team can't be organised to post five out of five (or seven from seven) then it shouldn't be made easier for that team to win imo. (And that's coming from someone in a team that failed to get five articles in a few times this season.)

I like the scores out of 100, and I think it's worked well. We don't need to invent new reasons why people might leave F7s...

 

[rabs]

I reckon the two most consistent teams throughout the season made the grand final, so it probably works pretty well as is
the two refs idea with an average would be the ideal, but as already mentioned the manpower is a problem
definitely don't believe the weighting system would work as some teams would encourage their weaker link not to post

 

[TooheysNew]

I don't think it's giving teams an unfair advantage even by not posting all 5. They still have to be of high enough quality to make up the points on the other team. If the team with all 5 in consistantly scores in the mid- to high-range then they still will win. 70+ points extra is hard to make up with just 4 players.

If anything it adds to the teamwork behind the game. Ensures teams communicate to prepare their best articles, and increases the standard across the board.

 

[Willow]

The real downside to that is that people, especially people who may be new to the game, who take time and effort into creating an article that they are proud of, get dishearted when they get a score 35 points lower than everyone else and it seeming looks like they lose the game for their team. They think, "Why bother with this?"
Then the F7s lose players who were keen to play.

I don't think we've had too may 35 point differences. It does happen offcourse, ie someone scoring in the 60s. Buts its rare.

Everyone takes times and effort.

Getting refs to increase their scores would build self esteem and self confidence to players, who would keep up their good work and keep on playing F7s.

Woah... lol

Are you suggesting that the refs could give extra points to posts just because the player is a newcomer. Encouragement points?
Not sure if that's fair on the competition or on the players.

I'm inclined to think that if a player is joining the F7s to score well, and are easily disheartened, they'll soon depart at the first hurdle anyway. I don't mean this as a criticism. Just stating that we really can't be catering to everyone who might leave after copping a low score.

Personally, I don't give that much priority to my score. Sure, I give attention to detail and try to win, but I'm not going to let the score I get rule my next move.

My main priority is to do the best I can in writing, getting my post in, and making sure I don't let the side down. If I score well then its a bonus. If the team wins, its a great bonus.

It doesn't have to be complicated.

 

[Azkatro]

Lots of good thoughts in this thread. I might just add at this stage that I think we're establishing a good strong core of F7's players, but I do have a concern that some people might get a bit bored if we have 5 straight seasons of 80-100's with no real drama or anything going on. Not that negative drama is a good thing, but I would hate to see the competition lose it's edge and excitement.

 

[Willow]

So its drama you want eh? ;-)

I think that's unavoidable. And the F7s radio next year is going to develop. IMO, its brought a whole new dimension to the F7s. Great work from RB60 and Wal. Just needs to be nutured and built up.

The main aim should still be to get all five posts in, every round.

When we have a season where no team drops a post, then we'll have a season like no other before.

 

[antonius]

Whatever scoring system we use, no matter what format it is in will never satisfy every ones idea of how it should be. There are some good thoughts in the suggestions put up in this thread, and they are worth considering. On the marking range of 80-100. From my point of view that is where the majority of articles submitted fall. In other words most are on a par with each other, with say 10% being standouts. So I think that range is a true and honest one, I have marked pieces in the 70's but rarely because the standard in the games is pretty high. When you talk of using ranges of 50-100, because of the good standard we have, it means people will start getting scores of 50 for a couple of spelling mistakes, or say an error with dates/scores etc used in the piece, now if the piece is well written, interesting, and out of the norm I think that warrants a higher score than say a match report that is gramatically perfect, but has been done a dozen times before, and is basically boring to read. I like the idea of two refs for finals games, and we toyed with the idea of doing that in this years finals, it would be good to do it in every round but lack of refs, and their time prevents this. I have posted threads asking people if they want to ref, but have had one reply so far this year. The weighting system doesn't sit well with me, simply because it is a team game and in as much it is up to that team to get 5 or 7 posts in, and if they can't do that then I don't see why a team that has should be disadvantaged. In the end we (the refs) are governed by our numbers in and our time in what we can do, using a scale for scoring such as 20% for spelling, 20% for entertainment, 20% for footy content etc, etc, isn't going to make it more consistant because in the end it is still a refs opinion, and as pointed out we all score differently based on what we like, it would also be very time consuming. Saying all that I'm happy to try anything that is workable, and agreed to by the majority.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I think a few posts have been a bit below the general standard and haven't really been marked accordingly. But I agree that overall the standard was at an all time high this season.