The 'how to improve the F7s' thread

[Willow]

Regretfully, one of the things we have discuss, yet again, is the issue of sportsmanship/code of conduct. It will be raised again in the post season discussions when the F7s committee have a chat.

No matter how hard we try to instill the right spirit, the code still gets ignored... and even by people who should know the drill. Its a little disappointing that a reminder is neccessary for experienced forummers. But maybe we need to be more flexible?

I've always hammered home this issue because of the F7s in 2002 were wrecked. But perhaps we're/I'm going about it the wrong way - it may need a different approach (softer or more hardline, I don't know) and I'm totally open to ideas and solutions.

It may be that the memories of 2002 are not overly relevant to the F7s of 2007. I'm keen to hear the general consensus on this before it gets to the F7s committee.

Bottom line is that I can't keep reminding people about the rules in regards to sportsmanship. Perhaps an experienced non-playing manager type person can 'coach' people or provide guidance in regards to the rules. It would be one of a few roles the manager would have and they would work closely with the captains.

 

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

more hardline

That'd be my idea.

I'm a relative newcomer to Forum 7s, but I'd have thought a zero tolerance approach to unsportsmanlike behaviour was justified.

By the same token I feel a little unsportsmanlike myself discussing it at this point in time. That's all I've got to say until after the Grand Final.

 

[LeagueNut]

My two cents ... there are pretty much three options as far as the sportsmanship thing goes:

1. Go softer - probably a dangerous trend. Referees have a hard enough job as it is, without increasing the aggro levels. I think the rules are made pretty clear anyway, maybe it's the (perceived) lack of consequences that means this issue continues to resurface.

2. Go harder - I think I've said this before, but this would be very hard to enforce while the F7's powers have links to F7's teams. That's not said against anyone at all, it's just the way things are. Imagine if Billy Slater was suddenly voted the new NRL CEO tomorrow, but kept playing fullback for the Storm - how could he NOT have people looking at him sideways?

Again, that's not said as an attack on anyone involved in running the competition - heck, I do my share of competition duties, and I'd hate the idea of anyone thinking I'd be rigging something in my teams favour - it's just an area that leaves the concept a little vulnerable.

3. Status quo - gets my vote. If anything, perhaps it's time to investigate some sort of committee where punishments can be decided. I'm not talking about life bans or anything too serious, but maybe a one or two match ban could be warranted for some scenarios. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a system like that has ever been used in F7's before?

Just off the top of my head, we've got 10 teams which means 10 captains. Maybe if more than two of them raise a concern about any individual poster, they can have a vote between the 10 of them to determine any punishment?

 

[antonius]

I think the way it's handled ATM is OK, however I'm not against some form of player suspension if after the initial warning the player concerned continues on with it, or if it concerns a repeat offender. I know players sometimes feel hard done by and that's understanderable, but at the end of the day the refs mark games as they see them, and I'm sure they don't deliberately undermark games which seems to be the main sticking point with some players, I know from reading some posts that team members feel they or their team mates have been hard done by in marking, or that opposing teams have been marked up more than they feel was deserved. Again people see the merits of posts differently, you have to accept that the ref is doing the job as best as they can and as fairly as they can, there is no possible reason for refs to be marking any differently. One trend I see creaping in more and more, is team members talking up posts prior to marking, I think that should be banned in the game thread. It's fine to congratulate the opposition in getting in all posts, but trying to influence the ref is another thing. The game thread is for game posts and marking. After the match is marked sure posts thanking the ref/opposition etc are fine. If you want to talk up your team mates posts I think it should be confined to the locker room until after the game is marked. Whinging about marks is virtually calling the ref a cheat, and that's not on, so yes I think the threat of suspension is worth looking at.

 

[Jesbass]

If anything, perhaps it's time to investigate some sort of committee where punishments can be decided. I'm not talking about life bans or anything too serious, but maybe a one or two match ban could be warranted for some scenarios.

Sort of like an F7s judiciary where players can receive enforced breaks due to acts of misconduct? I quite like the idea, although the negative side of that is that it could make the competition a bit too serious for some, when it is still, by and large, just a bit of fun.

 

[antonius]

Sort of like an F7s judiciary where players can receive enforced breaks due to acts of misconduct? I quite like the idea, although the negative side of that is that it could make the competition a bit too serious for some, when it is still, by and large, just a bit of fun.

Exactly, and that's the way it should be seen, it's not like people are playing for sheep stations or anything.

 

[Big Mick]

Well gee i'm surprised this has surfaced again. I wonder why...

I agree with the judiciary system of a panel of maybe 2 people and the offender where he can explain his/her comments, because on some occasions it could seem like one thing and be another. Then the 2 people can mutually decide on a punishment.

 

[...Morticia...]

lets be honest. most of the unsportsmanship is people sooking when theyve lost a game or got a mark they thought was crap when they think their essay is better. grandiose delusions most of them. people should stick to winging in the locker room. its where i go to sook. the passive aggressive sh*t in threads after games is worse than the sooking, underhanded and is the stuff that should be punished. its not hard to say cheers ref, congrats other team and then vent in the locker room if you have to. two cents given.

 

[bartman]

For what it's worth in airing this discussion I'm with zero tolerance on unsportsmanslike conduct, always have been. Makes participating in the thing less enjoyable when you have to read through whinges and forum tantrums when people don't get their own way.

There is a place (Locker Room) that has been provided for all teams to mouth off and vent to each other, and keep that dissent with referees and marks etc off the open forum. How hard is that? I know I've made use of it, felt better for it, and in doing so not dragged the spirit of F7s or the enjoyment of other players down..

There is no excuse for carrying on in a match thread after the results come back different to how a person may have hoped. I think there should be some flexibility for newcomers to F7s who maybe haven't picked up on the intended spirit, but if it's a team captain doing it or someone who has played a full season or a repeat offender, then bring the book down I say.

A judiciary is just a waste of time and effort imo, if a comment made has to be explained, then it probably shouldn't have been made in the F7s public forum at all. A person's passion doesn't equal an automatic licence to be a dickhead....

 

[Willow]

2. Go harder - I think I've said this before, but this would be very hard to enforce while the F7's powers have links to F7's teams. That's not said against anyone at all, it's just the way things are. Imagine if Billy Slater was suddenly voted the new NRL CEO tomorrow, but kept playing fullback for the Storm - how could he NOT have people looking at him sideways?

Again, that's not said as an attack on anyone involved in running the competition - heck, I do my share of competition duties, and I'd hate the idea of anyone thinking I'd be rigging something in my teams favour - it's just an area that leaves the concept a little vulnerable.

I made mention of a solution in my previous post, last paragraph. I think the job of reminding people of the rules has to be done by someone other than myself.

I'd like to address this in more detail later, but I have been busy with real life stuff, site issues, and then there's this little thing of me having to write an F7s essay. lol

Cheers.

 

[...Morticia...]

A person's passion doesn't equal an automatic licence to be a dickhead....

it works for andrew johns 8-[

totally agree with you bartman. and theres been a few dickheads around this year. ffs its an internet essay writing game not something life and death like snail racing. some people need to take a chill pill or get outside and talk to real people for a change if they think otherwise ;-)

 

[Crusher]

IF I don;t get 85 my superiors will sacrifice me to the Gods

 

[...Morticia...]

if i dont get 90 i'll sook and make comments in the game thread that i'll have to delete later

 

[Rexxy]

I think a good case could be mounted for the following "improvements".

Essays could be submitted without the writer's identity known.

Judging could take place without the identity of the ref being known.

The ref marking would not be identified til after the event.

A judging criteria be put in place... and it may go something like this :-

1. 30% of the mark is for originality. Is it a new approach, is it fresh, interesting, and never been done before. This is the only way to engender original thought?

2. 30% content. is what's being said backed up well. Is it thorough. Has there been some research. Is the content relevant to the core business of this site?

3. 30% style. is what's being said well crafted. Has some thought gone into the structure, does it have a beginning, middle and end, and was it written afteran outline? how was the content is presented. is this a good yarn mixed with a well thought out stuctured platform for an argument?

4. 10% "I like it". The ref has a fudge factor to award 10% of the mark simply coz they like the article.

Now there is a criteria, there should be open and honest debate about how the mark for an individual essay was arrived at. it's nice to be pleasant and gentlemanly, but I think transparency should be king. And with a published criteria, refs have nothing to fear. " I gave you 25/30 for structure. 30/30 for originality, 20/30 for content, and 8/10 because "i liked it". thats how I got to 83%.


I hope these ideas are taken in the spirit they are given. The idea is to generate debate.

The F7s is a colossal project that is maddening, blissful, infuriating, rewarding, depressing, and spiritually uplifting. Often all at once. Long live the F7s.

 

[gorilla]

cool, rexxie, nice thoughts.

It's the only way I've seen a scoring structure appealling.

 

[eloquentEEL]

those categories work for me. I've been a guest ref for one match (last year) and I used 7 categories when marking that match. I can pretty much map those to the 4 that rex has outlined, so I think it pretty much has all bases covered. obviously, there is still a lot of subjectivity, even with set categories, but it will hopefully assist in making the marking a bit more consistent and if required, more transparent.

 

[Master Vippo]

The only one im a bit iffy on is content. Some creative pieces obviously have mo research and are entirely false.

 

[Jesbass]

I don't like the percentage factor. Why does it have to be 30% for originality, for example? Why not 20%? Or 40%?

Do you get what I mean? I think referees should mark to their own individual criteria. That's what makes real life rugby league referees such an integral part of the match. Some are more strict with the offside rule than many of their peers, while others let defenders hold down the tackled player for longer than others.

I think that to give the referee specific criteria, (outside of "it must be <= 750 words and the topic must be related to rugby league"), would make this competition a lot less fun. And it's not about winning, in my mind - it's about having fun. It was fun that brought me here, and fun that keeps me here. If it gets too serious, I'll just end up doing something else more enjoyable with my spare time.

Alternatively, though, here's an idea for improving the forum sevens - pay the players! :lol:

 

[antonius]

I think a good case could be mounted for the following "improvements".

Essays could be submitted without the writer's identity known.

Judging could take place without the identity of the ref being known.

The ref marking would not be identified til after the event.

A judging criteria be put in place... and it may go something like this :-

1. 30% of the mark is for originality. Is it a new approach, is it fresh, interesting, and never been done before. This is the only way to engender original thought?

2. 30% content. is what's being said backed up well. Is it thorough. Has there been some research. Is the content relevant to the core business of this site?

3. 30% style. is what's being said well crafted. Has some thought gone into the structure, does it have a beginning, middle and end, and was it written afteran outline? how was the content is presented. is this a good yarn mixed with a well thought out stuctured platform for an argument?

4. 10% "I like it". The ref has a fudge factor to award 10% of the mark simply coz they like the article.

I'd like to know why you think these suggestions are "improvements"

The games are already marked without knowing the the writers identity (mine are anyway.) If the piece is put up without the posters identity how are you going to do it? If one person posts all a teams essays then it's open for a lot of fudging going on. I can't see that working. As for having certain criteria and giving percentages how is that any different to now? it will still come down to opinion anyway, it lends itself to argument even more than what we have I'm dead set against that. What possible reason would there be for not knowing who the ref is? Again certain players will know anyway because I notify the guys who put up the match threads and they are players. The message I get from all this is that people aren't happy with the system in place now. Are you saying that something is wrong with the scoring system? if so what is wrong with it? Examples please.

Now there is a criteria, there should be open and honest debate about how the mark for an individual essay was arrived at. it's nice to be pleasant and gentlemanly, but I think transparency should be king. And with a published criteria, refs have nothing to fear. " I gave you 25/30 for structure. 30/30 for originality, 20/30 for content, and 8/10 because "i liked it". thats how I got to 83%.

In depth disscusion on areas of the marking wont happen,the ref gives a brief description of his thoughts in the scoring now, any more will deter us from getting more refs, because even though you're saying "pleasent and Gentlemanly" some people will turn that disscussion into a bunfight. As said before I'm happy to discuss my marking with players via PM at any time.

 

[bartman]

I think the notion of a common criteria or percentage weightings may bring with it an expectation from certain players that standards or marks may be commonly applied across the refereeing ranks. However I think that may just result in more dissention than we have now about results and marking etc, as even within criteria like "originality", "content" and "style" each person/referee is going to have their own preferences or "I like it factor" on each scale anyway.

I think the suggestion was made as a way of trying to get at some way in which originaility of approach to articles can be formally rewarded, to encourage diversity? I agree with the sentiment, but see massive potential problems in enacting the proposed method. Can't see the open and honest debate about marks in relation to "the criteria" after each match being any more constructive than it has been in the past whenever it's openly occurred...

I think producing originality comes down to a willingness to take risks by individual players. Sometimes it will come off and you may get a 95+, but you have to take the risk that it didn't come across as wonderfully as you thought and you could end up with a 75. Perhaps it's the seriousness with which some of us can apply ourselves to the winning, and the importance we give the marks over the fun of simple particpation (and spectating) in F7s that gets in the way of risk and originality, rather than lack of a common public criteria for marking?