The 'how to improve the F7s' thread

[bartman]

Following on from the initial suggestion being made to encourage debate, how else do we encourage risk and originality? Personally I come back to sportsmanship.

In my opinion sportsmanship is the way that we can all learn to take the results and marks less to heart, and write for entertainment and satisfaction instead of limiting ourselves to pre-conceived ideas of what particular people think is a good article.

The cream rises to the top, even if we occasionally wish a particular article had have done better in marks on the day, or a team result went a different way than we ourselves might have expected. Often the private words of teammates and spectators can fill that satisfaction gab where a referee's preferences may not have.

Obviously it's not an organised competition without some form of marking and therefore result, but I try get my enjoyment more out of writing the articles, seeing ideas come to fruitition, and reading those of my teammates and opposition, than I do out of the mark, comment or game result. The times I least enjoy F7s is reading people spraying off publicly after the event about individual marks or match results.

A supportive team makes a massive difference. One where you can discuss off board your feelings about the articles each other have written, what those articles mean to the person, learn the background or the genesis of the ideas, and if needed vent your reactions to the marks or result. The spirit with which the team supports each other, and the nature of the goals team members are trying to achieve individually and collectively can be bigger and more meaningful than any mark or match or title alone could ever be.

If within ourselves and our teamwork we put a little less emphasis on the winning or result, emotions of disappointment etc, and put more emphasis on supporting the personal and achieveable goals within the team and individual's control then originality can thrive, even without titles won for the team or desired marks for an individual from the referee. All can be traced back to old fashioned sportsmanship, where the result (although necessary) becomes secondary to the participation...

 

[rabs]

I agree with bart 100%, sportsmanship is what makes the F7's great. I challenge anyone to put forward a game where the result went "glaringly" to the wrong team. Of course there will be close ones that could have gone either way but thats footy/F7's and if you can't deal with that then you need to take a good look at your attitude. There seems to be a block of opinion that want to restructure the refereeing/marking system but I think it's fine as is. This is a team game and while the showboaters will always be present and on many occassions matchwinners the increased whining that is creeping into the game will drive more people out of F7's then bring them in. The solution as mentioned in previous posts is to have a thorough profile of each referee, even have links to high scoring posts and low scoring posts as marked by that ref in the previous season. Rookie refs will require a bit more research by those needing this kind of information.

I have reffed a few games in the last few seasons and like Antonius I mark the articles without knowing the author. To do this all you need is someone to copy the articles out for you minus the identities giving you an unidentified list of articles for marking. One of the most common complaints I see about marking is that sh*t doesn't get sh*t marks, with a base of around 80 for the poorer articles. I see no problem with this as long as the best team wins and the better articles get better marks than the poorer articles. To be honest there really isn't much rubbish going around anyway.

 

[Master Vippo]

Pretty much spot on Rabs. I dont see a problem with the marking at the moment either, Pretty sane comments.

 

[Rexxy]

Firstly, my suggestion of marking to a criteria, was not aimed at any one person or as a comment on what's happened. Refs do a thankless job. We all appreciate them giving up their time.

This is all about the future. Its all about measurement. Measurement is the basic tenant of creating quality environments

If anything then, a criteria protects the ref and makes their life so much easier.

If articles were judged on content, structure, originality, style, etc then the result would be better articles. Less of the repetition and it would encourage original thought.

Judging criteria idea is not new. Allocating percentages is how TV commercials are judged and I wouldn't be surprised if how Secondary School papers are judged (any teachers comment on this?)

Frankly, if judging is subjective, ad not linked to a globally adopted structure, there will always be inconsistancies.

If there is a criteria for a judging an Article you can then rank it against others submited in that round, in that year, in that decade.


And as someone said, (sorry forgot who) they already judge to a criteria of 7 aspects. Great, lets standardise that criteria. Any criteria. As long as its standard.

To start discussion I reckon 33 % content, 33% style, 23% originality, 10% margin for WTF - seems pretty fair. MAybe you can add ranking for footy content, or syntax?

And if a writer questions the mark they got, then it can be done clinically, academically and in public.

I know refs give up time, but writers deserve a standardised and fairer and more scientific appraisal.

 

[bartman]

I love your inetntions Rexxy, can't fault your desire for the future and quality articles. I'm just still waiting to be convinced that a standard marking criteria applied across different referees interpretations of those criteria will be any less subjective, resolve any public dissatisfaction over how a mark might have been arrived at any easier, or encourage more diversity/quality in articles?

My questions would be:
What is "content"? What is "style"? What is "originality"? etc. How are they actually defined, and how will referees be marking for them? Bascially what is expected of a writer to meet the measurement standards upon which individual and success is decided, and upon which articles can be ranked across time? If you have criteria and they aren't defined, is there any use in having them? And if they are meant to stay as "loose" criteria, then is that much different to how each ref might do things now, and how will it help clinically, academically and publicly solve disputes?

I actually fear that to arrive at agreed definitions of standard criteria might involve defining some of the life/fun out of F7s, and the articles may become more robotic or formulaic, in trying to meet the (more involved) criteria? Would creativity not be encouraged as much or more if people were able to focus on the marks and results part of it a bit less, writing instead for their own standards of quality and innovation (whatever they may individually be), within teams (and with interested readers) that can support each other to shrug off any disappointment in term sof marks/game results?

And presumably just like high school papers, unless you have the same person marking everything (or marking certain parts of papers), you can't escape differences in how criteria are evenly applied. It's still going to be subjective and there are still going to be disputes. The objectivity of standard measurement principles outside of physical dimensions can be overstated, especially when it is going to be (realistically) applied by a range of different "measurers".

Sorry, not meaning to be a wet blanket on good ideas in formulation, but I think for criteria to function in teh way it seems you are looking for, then you need to further define what content, style and originality might be. (The ones in your original post on the matter seem very open to individual interpretation.)

 

[Rexxy]

Thanks Bartman, I want to give your post the attention it deserves, so let me work on it.

All I'd say at present is, when you mark a statewide exam, one person cant' read all the essays, so you have a system that is fair to all entrants, that creates a uniform result. ie a criteria.

And while I get some some stats and thoughts together I'll just ask , in the meantime, a question for amy of our refs past and present .

When you give someone zero, how do you arrive at that?

And as a ref, how do you feel about the prospect of having to justify your decision in public?

 

[antonius]

Thanks Bartman, I want to give your post the attention it deserves, so let me work on it.

All I'd say at present is, when you mark a statewide exam, one person cant' read all the essays, so you have a system that is fair to all entrants, that creates a uniform result. ie a criteria.

And while I get some some stats and thoughts together I'll just ask , in the meantime, a question for amy of our refs past and present .

When you give someone zero, how do you arrive at that?

And as a ref, how do you feel about the prospect of having to justify your decision in public?

I've only ever given a couple of zeros, they were for not having any football content at all, or for being submitted late, or edited after fulltime. As for justifying descisions in public, well to a point we already do that. Bartman is correct, we are running a fun competition here, frankly if we are going to get to the stage of marking to criteria, and then having public debates about why people get certain marks I for one wont be reffing anymore games. I'm still wanting to know what issues you have with how it's done now, and the reasons/examples of why you're not happy with it.

 

[Rexxy]

well it didnt take long for someone to throw their toys out of the cot ;-)


The fact someone got a Zero is the very best reason to have a judging criteria. Writing your name on top of an exam paper gets you an automatic 2.

If there was a judging guideline, then you can reduce points for those indescretions. Instead of giving someone who went to an effort the scorn and derision of a subjective zero.

Remember A, this is only a discussion.

I just want my 85 score in 2004 to be worth the same as my 85 in 2006. Then we can compare players from different eras.

I've only ever given a couple of zeros, they were for not having any football content at all, or for being submitted late, or edited after fulltime. As for justifying descisions in public, well to a point we already do that. Bartman is correct, we are running a fun competition here, frankly if we are going to get to the stage of marking to criteria, and then having public debates about why people get certain marks I for one wont be reffing anymore games. I'm still wanting to know what issues you have with how it's done now, and the reasons/examples of why you're not happy with it.

 

[antonius]

It's not about throwing toys out of the cot. We aren't running exams here it's a fun competition. We only have a handfull of refs who don't want to be spending hours and hours marking posts, I'm simply stating if we get to a stage of debating every score in every game I wont be doing it.

 

[bartman]

Thanks Bartman, I want to give your post the attention it deserves, so let me work on it.

All I'd say at present is, when you mark a statewide exam, one person cant' read all the essays, so you have a system that is fair to all entrants, that creates a uniform result. ie a criteria.

Will do R.

I was just thinking of the marking papers within a school level only, where say in year 9 english one teacher would mark everybody's section A, another teacher everybody's section B etc. This meant that when you got your papers back there were no squabbles because the criteria was applied by the same person, you had to just accept that you didn't have what that particular teacher/referee was looking for on that occasion (ie just like any F7s game).

The difference for the statewide exams is that no-one gets their papers back to compare their marks to those of their friends (who may have been marked by different people), there's no comments or anything with which to form judgements about how the criteria were applied, or to publicly dispute anything. You just have to cop your statewide marks as received (I used English as the example, because it's closer to F7s and marking is largely up to interpretation, and criteria/measurement probably works better in Maths and Science.)

We already have a broad criteria, that articles must "rugby-league related". This is pretty general and imo gives plenty of scope for originality. However there are also some guidelines that currently impact on marking, similar to the criteria suggested but without the weightings/measurement principle.
ie
-Essays score more points if they are rugby league related. Essays which have little or no reference to rugby league will score low.
-Essays which show some effort will be marked favourably.
-The more original the essay, the higher the score.
-A well researched essay may also score well.

Again each of these is open to interpretation by different markers/referees, as I fear will be any set criteria/weightings. In an inexact science, it is hard to achieve the objectivity. However maybe some of these guidelines might be able to be explained a little more to encourage diversity of articles (or pushing the F7s boundaries?) while also helping players and referees avoid cases where 0 marks need to be awarded?

 

[bartman]

It's not about throwing toys out of the cot. We aren't running exams here it's a fun competition. We only have a handfull of refs who don't want to be spending hours and hours marking posts, I'm simply stating if we get to a stage of debating every score in every game I wont be doing it.

And that's why the sportsmanship is so important. I haven't see Rexxy dispute marks after a match, and here he's trying to talk general principles to avoid doing so while exploring possible areas for improvement.

But I have seen disputes of marks/results at the time creep in in the open forums, and it helps to take the fun away (and more so for the referees concerned, I'm sure). Each team has a locker room, ideally created for private venting (and support) amongst each other. No place/excuse for the debating of marks after matches in threads in my opinion.

 

[Rexxy]

Originally Posted by Rexxy
If there was a criteria there would be less grounds for debate. If you want to know how I got to a mark of 80, I gave you 20 for content, 20 for structure, 20 for syntax etc.

Anyway i fear im on a losing crusade here, so I'll stop now.

It seems the gentlemenly thing to do will continue, which isnt bad at all, but doffing ones cap when one gets a ZERO must stick in the craw. ( Antonious how can one can get a ZERO?).

If refs dont want it, we cant afford to lose refs, so lets move on. But we churn far more writers than we do refs, which says something.

WHat if there was a panel of review for refs, who stepped in if a player felt their mark was unfair? It happens in the NRL

Again, I would concede the argument in the spirit of sportsmanship....

And that's why the sportsmanship is so important. I haven't see Rexxy dispute marks after a match, and here he's trying to talk general principles to avoid doing so while exploring possible areas for improvement.

But I have seen disputes of marks/results at the time creep in in the open forums, and it helps to take the fun away (and more so for the referees concerned, I'm sure). Each team has a locker room, ideally created for private venting (and support) amongst each other. No place/excuse for the debating of marks after matches in threads in my opinion.

 

[Rexxy]

duplicate

 

[bartman]

I had a strange idea over the weekend, which is kind of a conglomeration of some of the suggestions already put up in this thread... bear with me and see if it makes any sense, or might be worth considering?

There's been talk here about a theme being given for articles (for which people seem split), and there's talk about having one longer article designated per team per game (for which people seem split), and the talk about a criteria or openly debatable marking (for which people seem split). So I put it all together, and...

4 x <750 word articles each team, marked by one ref exactly as per now.
1 x <1000 word articles each team, written to a theme announced at kickoff, same theme covers all F7 matches that round, all theme articles marked by a (different) ref, according to a structure/criteria just for the theme artciles.

Assuming we won't have an increae in teams for F7s for next season (one or two teams fold, one or two replace them), that just means that you need one extra ref per round (existing five plus one for this theme/criteria concept). If refs rotate the theme position each round, it might make it more interesting for regular refs or easier to attract guest refs?

The game results could therefore come down to the theme ref notifying the match refs of the marks/comments for theme articles, so these can then be added in the match thread to the overall match marks/comments. Maybe it's too complicated and opens up a range of new difficulties?

Not pushing for this idea particularly myself, just thought it gives a different spin on suggestions a few people have made in here? And gives a different way to test the theme idea, test the longer article idea, test the criteria idea, without it being a wholesale change of rules or approaches, and could all be re-evaluated after a season's run? Or not.

Doesn't touch on the open debate/justification of marks, which is still a tricky one, and perhaps that could still just be between a player and a ref (via PM) if needed? Or Rexxy's panel idea, which would seem to be great for dealing with how someone feels abaout a 0 or <50 mark than say the difference between an 80 and an 85 or a 90 and 95 (for which I think it would might still be unworkable)?

 

[antonius]

It seems the gentlemenly thing to do will continue, which isnt bad at all, but doffing ones cap when one gets a ZERO must stick in the craw. ( Antonious how can one can get a ZERO?).

see post 167 in this thread

I've only ever given a couple of zeros, they were for not having any football content at all, or for being submitted late, or edited after fulltime.

all of those qualify for a zero (see rules) So yes I've given zeros but scored them according to the set rules.

 

[Crusher]

BUt it was a quality zero!

 

[Azkatro]

Rexxy's idea of anonimity (sp!) resonated with me somewhat. I'm sure Dilly could whip up a system within the F7's site (almost as an add-on to the word counter to the end user) where articles are submitted. Here you specify which team you're posting for, and if there are any hiccups we can use the forums to air them ("I accidentally selected the wrong team when I posted!").

Then whichever refs are assigned for marking that round are given a pool of articles (so if there are 4 refs and 40 articles, they get 10 each) not knowing which team they're from, or which author. They submit their marks via the article system (with an optional comment) and once an article is marked it is made available for public consumption. Not sure if they'd have to be posted in the forums somehow post-marking or displayed on the F7's site somewhere, but casual readers could check out say the top 5 for the round based on points (without having to wade through the game threads).

Additionally players would NEVER know who marked their article (unless they were told or the comment made it obvious), if they wanted more info however something would have to be worked out. The refs would essentially be an anonymous, but single, entity. They would presumably get a random selection of articles from the round to mark, with no leaning towards any game, team etc.

I think this would be a really pleasing system from a participant's point of view, and allows for more flexibility with regards to managing the comp without having to depend on the clunkiness of the forum system for submitting & viewing F7's games.

I guess the biggest sacrifice here however is people who like to have one ref marking a game, but the positives outweight the negatives IMO. As they say it all evens out.

 

[Crusher]

Azkatro,

I think you're onto something. I support this idea 100%

 

[rabs]

yeah that sounds like a fantastic idea and it would work

 

[Jesbass]

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.