Text Types Scoring for Next Year's F7s???

[TiTTieS_[CNTDN]]

I have come up with an idea to introduce in next year's F7s (if you aren't already using it anyway???) an index where different text types (narrative, exposition, discussion etc) score differently according to difficulty. This would work much the same as gymnastics does (at least as I understand gymnastics).

So narratives, which are relatively easy to write up, would be limited to a score of say 90. Discussions and expositions which are trickier to write, would be capped at 95. Procedures, which are very difficult to write (as they do not lend themselves to the Rugby League topic) would be capped at 100.

The system would still be the same as it is currently; all that would be different is that, for example, a narrative which would regularly score 95 would be reduced to 90 (as is its set limit).

Is this a good idea or a bad idea? Remember that the scores I have given are just examples

 

[Steel Dragon]

I could imagine that marking is hard enough already without having to complicate it further.

Good writing is good writing - regardless of what form it takes.

 

[TiTTieS_[CNTDN]]

Is a team scoring 40 points against a PL outfit as good as the same team scoring 40 points against an NRL outfit? My answer is no, although I think I can see what you are saying. Are you basically saying that you should not be punished even if you write a very good article? Perhaps a better way would be to reward the harder text types with an extra 10 or 15% Thoughts either way?

 

[bartman]

It's a bit hard to define pieces of writing into strict categories easily, fairly or consistently though? Some might be easy to match into a category, but others would be open to interpretation of what category it might best fit, causing unnecessary arguments if scores have been artifically restricted as a result.

You could argue that the best writing actually exists beyond any simple categorisations anyway, and is already rewarded accordingly. I'm happy with refs judging a good piece of writing as a good piece of writing, regardless of categories the cream tends to rise to the top anyway. Sounds like more work for refs, and they work hard enough as it is - and harder than most of us give them credit for.

Perhaps the reasons more risky articles (rightly) don't automatically get top marks, is that they don't always come off as well as the writer thinks they do? Kind of like trying a flick pass in premier league, compared to trying a flick pass in first grade - just because you try something which might require more skill doesn't mean it won't go to ground and therefore be judged accordingly.

Keep throwing ideas up though Titties - in the off-season Willow gets together a committee of people to chew through ideas about how F7s might develop for the next season - keep an eye out for the thread and feed your ideas into that.

 

[TiTTieS_[CNTDN]]

bartman, I agree with what you are saying - although I do believe my idea has merit. Having read your post, I just feel that administering it would prove to be too difficult to justify using it.

If I do come up with any ideas, I will throw them up in the off-season as you suggest. Cheers.

 

[TiTTieS_[CNTDN]]

Perhaps if we made it so that there are certain categories for articles to fall in? For example,
** Narrative and recount/retell
** Exposition and Discussion
** Procedure and Information Report.
** Others and Mixed text Type.

Over the course of the year, each category would be required to be covered at least 5 times regardless of who submitted it. The player would be required to declare the text type before the article (without counting towards the word limit) and this would be tallied up throughout the season.

 

[gorilla]

I’m not going to be a referee next year because I want to have a go at writing again – albeit on a very casual and informal basis. So my views are as a currently active ref and a past and future poster.

I’d not like a scoring system implemented that structured styles and formats by awarding of points against a perceived degree of difficulty. It’s a bit like a reverse handicap system. I could write procedures (I do produce legislation, regulation and policy for State government as part of my working life) but bugger me if I want to or ever will, and I’ll not be handicapped against some anally retentive type because I choose not to produce that sort of post. Same goes for discussions or narratives – I’ll write my style, which can actually cover a couple of genres, and stack them up against whatever others want to write about and let’s see which is better.

Analogously, it’s like saying that a prop (procedures) should get benefit over a 5/8 (discussion) and both benefit ahead of a fullback (narrative).

Personally I hate certain types of posts and would never stoop to write them, there are others I see as being cheap attempts at humour or emotional blackmail. In addition some post styles or genres are so predictable and common that I cringe to read them. I would rather not post than try and write them. Nevertheless they might be good at what it is or the quality of that post is worth a good score.

Don’t try and bottle the wind. Some people are better at certain styles than others and no-one should be penalised because they choose or are driven to a style.

By all means if the executive wants to try and put some accountability into scoring, then have a go, but my view is that its too hard and stifles the original at the expense of the formulaic. We have rules like the game itself and talent and styles are there to be expressed.

A scoring system was used in the early days of f7s, pre LU, and whilst it had some benefits, it was best used to argue over about scores – arrgh, no thanks – better to argue without basis on that one. If we are selective about the refs and they are a well-intentioned bunch, then that’s enough for me.

anyway IMO the more structure outside the rules, the less freedom we have.

cheers, Goz.;-)

 

[Crusher]

I
d like to see 'theme' matches introduced where in some rounds all articles were to be based around a particlular theme or topic

 

[antonius]

I'm not in favour of this idea. As a ref I really don't want to held into classifying certain types of posts, I'm with Goz.

 

[TiTTieS_[CNTDN]]

I'd like to see 'theme' matches introduced where in some rounds all articles were to be based around a particlular theme or topic

Agreed, Crusher. I like that idea as it adds extra variety - the main idea underpinning the idea of text type scoring.

gorilla, if people are allowed to write whatever they like, then some of them will almost always write about the same thing, especially their favourite team! If writers are not forced to think outside the box, then it is highly likely that their articles will become stale, or, as you put it "so predictable and common that I cringe to read them." Variety is the spice of life, as they say.

 

[antonius]

Agreed, Crusher. I like that idea as it adds extra variety - the main idea underpinning the idea of text type scoring.

gorilla, if people are allowed to write whatever they like, then some of them will almost always write about the same thing, especially their favourite team! If writers are not forced to think outside the box, then it is highly likely that their articles will become stale, or, as you put it "so predictable and common that I cringe to read them." Variety is the spice of life, as they say.

I think you'll find that posters that do write on the same subject all the time do not score very well. The encouragement to write outside the square is already there in the better mark. I personally dislike reading match reports over and over again, also reading about a teams player roster can become very boring, these type of posts do not score well with me. The option is there every game to write the unusual and the posters that do that will get the reward of a higher score. Another point would be on theme games the ref is basically going to be reading ten posts all about the same thing, I can tell you by the time I get to No10 I wont be feeling generous.

 

[edabomb]

I don't believe in themed rounds. As someone suggested 60s,70s,80s week etc like the NRL, in the NRL they only play in the 60s jerseys, they don't resort to a 60s style of play or anything!!!! Plus these would be hard for newer fans to write on, and we hardly want to discourage new fans from F7s.

Really the only thing I would consider changing is only having For instead of For and Against, as that is often influenced by how many turnout for the other side.

Although the preseason comp and mark out of 70 for late posts also look like good suggestions.

 

[Black Kitty]

Plus these would be hard for newer fans to write on, and we hardly want to discourage new fans from F7s.

I have to agree. I'm new to NRL and to F7's. I've only written twice and that was hard enough, with a limited knowledge of the game to date.
Without adding restrictions like themed games, that would put people like me out of the game altogether.

SD is also right, I think that the ref's have a hard enough job as it is without making it harder. imo anyway.

 

[gorilla]

I think you'll find that posters that do write on the same subject all the time do not score very well. The encouragement to write outside the square is already there in the better mark. I personally dislike reading match reports over and over again, also reading about a teams player roster can become very boring, these type of posts do not score well with me. The option is there every game to write the unusual and the posters that do that will get the reward of a higher score.

Yup, me too

Another point would be on theme games the ref is basically going to be reading ten posts all about the same thing, I can tell you by the time I get to No10 I wont be feeling generous.

mmm, could be tedious but it has a certain 'sumzing' if the themes were very broad and general - a bad post or a boring post is likely under any scenario.

 

[Misanthrope]

I'll add my disagreement to the others. As a player and part-time referee, I don't like the idea of being 'forced' to write in an uncomfortable style simply because it's required. It's hard enough trying to figure out what kind of article Captain Dread or gorilla likes without also having to produce it in perfect iambic pentameter.

What I would like to see is 'referee profiles' added to the F7s websites, simply so captains and players can get a 'feel' for what their referee likes to read. Just a small thing to make the process a little less daunting. Some of the more experienced players have already picked up on it, but I think it'd be a good way to avoid confusion when marks come in.

 

[gorilla]

I'll add my disagreement to the others. As a player and part-time referee, I don't like the idea of being 'forced' to write in an uncomfortable style simply because it's required. It's hard enough trying to figure out what kind of article Captain Dread or gorilla likes without also having to produce it in perfect iambic pentameter.

What I would like to see is 'referee profiles' added to the F7s websites, simply so captains and players can get a 'feel' for what their referee likes to read. Just a small thing to make the process a little less daunting. Some of the more experienced players have already picked up on it, but I think it'd be a good way to avoid confusion when marks come in.

I thought the profiles had been done, or was that for last year ?

I think it's good to have that insight - I was always careful to note who was the ref that fortnight, but it didn't always matter or help.

 

[Willow]

The ref profiles are there for those who dare to look. ;-)

Unfortunately they might be in need of an update. But they go back to previous seasons as well.

Its best to put that suggestion in the 'how to improve' suggestion thread.

 

[gorilla]

The ref profiles are there for those who dare to look. ;-)

Unfortunately they might be in need of an update. But they go back to previous seasons as well.

Its best to put that suggestion in the 'how to improve' suggestion thread.

I looked and I'm impressed.

I'd next like to update it !

 

[Misanthrope]

I'm confused. The 2006 referees page just has 'Coming Soon' on it. And even the past season profiles give no real indication of what kind of articles a referee likes to read.

 

[gorilla]

I'm confused. The 2006 referees page just has 'Coming Soon' on it. And even the past season profiles give no real indication of what kind of articles a referee likes to read.

I doubt they'd ever say what they like to read.

Me personally it's stick magazines.