The 'how to improve the F7s' thread

[...Morticia...]

I like that idea from a perspective of preventing referees potentially coming under for certain marks and so forth, but I like the idea of the same referee marking every article in the same match. I don't like the idea that I might get a lower mark than someone else despite potentially writing a better article, because my ref is a harder marker than my opponent's. I also prefer to have the opportunity to play to the ref, regardless of whether or not I do actually end up playing to them.

agree totally on both points. when you know who your ref is you potentially have an idea as to how they mark, what they'll pull you up on and what kinds of styles they like. not knowing who the ref is means you cant at least attempt to do this. IF it were to go ahead that the ref was anonymous, i'd certainly want the same ref marking all the artcles from one game.

but for mine, seems the fun is going to be stripped out of this game pretty bloody quick the rate we're going. sorry to those who put a lot of effort into it but why do we suddenly need to make a whole lot of changes to something that is working except for a few whingers every year that cant cop their marks?

 

[Crusher]

lets mark the articles ourselves

 

[...Morticia...]

lets mark the articles ourselves

it would give us a fair idea of what people actually thought their artcles were worth and would keep everyone happy. and we could hand out gold star avatars to the special children too

 

[[furrycat]]

Referees have already stated that they mark anonymously. They take the articles off the site into word, mark them, then match them up to the authors and teams.

 

[Crusher]

it would give us a fair idea of what people actually thought their artcles were worth and would keep everyone happy. and we could hand out gold star avatars to the special children too

Then I want a gold star for being 'special'

 

[antonius]

agree totally on both points. when you know who your ref is you potentially have an idea as to how they mark, what they'll pull you up on and what kinds of styles they like. not knowing who the ref is means you cant at least attempt to do this. IF it were to go ahead that the ref was anonymous, i'd certainly want the same ref marking all the artcles from one game.

but for mine, seems the fun is going to be stripped out of this game pretty bloody quick the rate we're going. sorry to those who put a lot of effort into it but why do we suddenly need to make a whole lot of changes to something that is working except for a few whingers every year that cant cop their marks?

I agree completely with Morts view. I'm still wanting to know why we need the ref to be unknown??? please someone explain it to me, what advantage is there in it for anyone, how will it improve what we have now?

 

[Willow]

I'm a supporter of the keep it simple method.

The refs do a fine job.

I'm all for trialing new ideas. However, the current process is quite transparent... and it works.

 

[...Morticia...]

I'm a supporter of the keep it simple method.

The refs do a fine job.

I'm all for trialing new ideas. However, the current process is quite transparent... and it works.

KISS all the way. why do you guys put it so much more diplomatically than me though ;-)

to be honest, if i was a ref at this point i'd be going screw this. i've been in a house with someone reffing and know for a fact that he always copied the essays without the names or teams and printed them out to mark them. he never knew the result until a few minutes before you guys did. the thing i like about the regular refs is that i do have some respect for them (sorry to the guest refs but i havent seen enough of their marking to have formed an opinion) and thats important.

gold stars to the refs and one to crusher for being the most special, special child here

 

[Azkatro]

To be honest I just read the concerns of a few people and thought of that idea. I'm not sure why there are so many posts getting defensive - only have to agree or disagree.

 

[...Morticia...]

To be honest I just read the concerns of a few people and thought of that idea. I'm not sure why there are so many posts getting defensive - only have to agree or disagree.

i dont see anyone getting defensive azkatro, just giving an opinion for or against or both for those of us that like to sit on the fence. its been one of the better ideas put foward, in my opinion but i'm a KISS person personally.

thats the beauty of internet forums. lots of opinions and just as much misinterpretation of those opinions.

 

[Crusher]

I want to know who the ref is. My Consiglieri will be very interested to know indeed

 

[...Morticia...]

My Consiglieri will be very interested to know indeed

you have more than one? :sarcasm:

 

[Crusher]

you have more than one? :sarcasm:

I have several. One for each ref

 

[gorilla]

I have several. One for each ref

You may retire mine, baby.

 

[Crusher]

Actually I think I'll ref and mark my own articles - without bias of course

 

[Big Mick]

i'm up for the KISS method.

It just creates more work for refs. Gotta make it easier for the ref's imo. Thats just my opinion but.

*waits for the smartarse call from 1-3 people*

 

[Willow]

OK everyone, we are going to set up the F7s committee for its annual get together.

The F7s Commitee includes captains, non-playing referees, senior players and those participants involved in the various areas of F7s management.

The object is have every team well represented while decisions are made for the 2007 competition.

Those decisions include:
1. The teams of 2007
2. Rule changes
3. Other matters such as those discussed in this thread

Here's the expected tme line of events:
- The committee will meet this month, and make the required decisions.
- If necessary votes will be taken. As 'chairperson', I don't vote unless there is a deadlock.
- In early February, the committee will disband for another year.
- Following that, a draw will be put together and the website updated.
- The 2007 F7s will kick off around late February-early March.

Last year the F7s committee had 12 people and there was wide representation. We'll be aiming at a similar number and the same wide representation.

We need one captain from each team
Team captains, or a stand-in captains: please confirm here who will be your 2007 captain, and therefore who you want to have on the F7s Committee.

Cheers.

 

[The Piper]

Got nothing better to do with my life except look back over these ideas...

Alternatively (and maybe along the lines of what you mean) the top five seems a tad generous for a 10 team comp, and perhaps we should consider a top four semis. The old Sydney comp never had a top five for 10 teams and even had top four for a while when there were 12 teams.

Last season, with two rounds to go, I may be wrong but Im sure the teams in 6th, 7th and 8th all could still have made the top 5 and hence the finals. If it was only a top 4, then 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th were out of the running just past the half way mark.

If we change it to top 4, then I feel the teams that find themselves for whatever reason at the bottom of the table this year will find they can't make the finals by Round 5 or 6. These teams would be the ones struggling for players or wins or whatever. I can't see players involved in these cellar dwelling teams putting their hands up to write 750 words for the last couple of games for no apparent reason. They won't and we can expect some 5v2 games come the last few rounds.

Yeah, there's playing for pride and not to come last, and winning isn't everything, but losing consistantly isn't much fun either. I vote to keep it Top 5 and keep the majority of the teams in the chase and writing passionatly for the whole season.

If we had a ten team comp, split it into two conferences say A and B. Conferences decided by how teams finished the year before Ie; 1,3,5,7,9 - 2,4,6,8,10.

new teams could go either way.

For finals it would be the top 3 from each.

Team 1 has week off. 2 plays three.

Winner of 2 v 3 plays 1 to get conference winner.

Then, winner of each conference plays off in the GF

Interesting. With what I think will be another 10 team season this year, it would only give some teams 4 games the entire season. But for the future, if we eventuate into 12 or 14 sides, although that may seem a bit of an ask, its not a bad idea to have in the back of our heads. 6 rounds a season sounds pretty good, then the finals.

 

[griffo346]

Originally Posted by Crusher
If we had a ten team comp, split it into two conferences say A and B. Conferences decided by how teams finished the year before Ie; 1,3,5,7,9 - 2,4,6,8,10.

new teams could go either way.

For finals it would be the top 3 from each.

Team 1 has week off. 2 plays three.

Winner of 2 v 3 plays 1 to get conference winner.

Then, winner of each conference plays off in the GF

Originally Posted by Waken
Interesting. With what I think will be another 10 team season this year, it would only give some teams 4 games the entire season. But for the future, if we eventuate into 12 or 14 sides, although that may seem a bit of an ask, its not a bad idea to have in the back of our heads. 6 rounds a season sounds pretty good, then the finals.

Like to see this done this yr
we could always play each other 2 times

 

[Robster]

Jesbass will be representing the Warriors.