Work together or implode ..

[dubopov]

Come clean you blokes ... take aim at me, that's fine but I challenge anyone of you to show where I started this.

Dub, if you spread my REPLY (Willow see this, I repeat, I was minding my own business) to your message then say so and if you did not then also say so.

I publicly state that I will not reply to any pm from anybody other than officials managing the competition, Willow sending his phone number and my team members from now until the end of this season when I will then subside into history. I will play out this season in respect of the teams participating.

here's what was said between Titanic and myself .. apologies to Big Pete for making this public, but your Captain has forced the issue ..

***EDITED: No PMs are to be made public except your own.***

 

[Jesbass]

Wow...

I guess it's good to get it all out in the open, but not at the expense of F7s. A cathartic release is fine, but airing dirty laundry in public is hardly an irenic approach and I doubt it will garner the game new recruits.

Willow and Titanic, F7s can't afford to have you two warhorses going toe to toe. I dare say that a fair amount of hatchet burying might be in order - I hope, for the sake of this competition, you'll both agree to that (and sincerely).

I also think that a chat over a beer (or the phone) might serve to go a long way to righting wrongs. Willow, would you consider taking up that offer?

In all seriousness, where has all this politicking come from? I know that as a player I perceived biases where in hindsight I realise there probably weren't any. So from that point of view, I can understand that other people might come to similar conclusions. And although I can't speak for other referees, I know my own approach is as unbiased as possible and to suggest otherwise, (of any of the referees), is a slight on their character.

Quite frankly, we all have to learn to accept that this is a game, (even if we get passionate about it), and we need to take people at their word.

Otherwise, the game simply won't survive.

This game needs champions. Willow and Titanic, as proud leaders of your own parochial clans, I implore you to step back and face the same direction so that we can all put F7s first. As dubopov quite rightly said when he started this thread: "Work together or implode".

We simply can't afford the latter.

 

[Jesbass]

im getting to the same stage as dub ive alnost had enough i used to look forwrd to writing f7s articles and now i dont

I'm sorry to hear that, griffo - what is it that has served to dampen your passion? What can be done to bring it back?

 

[Jesbass]

here's what was said between Titanic and myself .. apologies to Big Pete for making this public, but your Captain has forced the issue ..

***EDITED: No PMs are to be made public except your own.***

I know we've gone over this a few times, dubopov, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up again.

But a few points:
- I marked all matches (as I will continue to do) without knowing the identity of the author.
- I didn't see 25 errors in Big Pete's article, but he did get penalised for non-grammatical flaws.
- I noted more than 3 grammatical errors in your piece, hence the mid-range mark. I offered to help you by showing you how you could improve, and you didn't take me up on that offer. But that offer stands.
- I didn't know Mungo Wilkes was a former Dragons player. I'd never heard of him until I read your article - or at least didn't recall his name. I've only been following league since 1995, so there are a lot of former players whose names I don't recognise.
- I offered suggestions on how you could further eliminate any hints as to which team you belong to, although I think that's a non-issue if you are willing to accept the word of the referee in question when he states his marking process and his yearning for neutrality.
- I have been in favour of, (and continue to be in favour of), a marking guideline to assist players and referees alike. I do, however, also have to acknowledge that some are opposed to such an approach. As such, a semblance of middle ground seems the most sensible approach. (A "something is better than nothing" compromise.)
***EDITED: No PMs are to be made public except your own.***
- I take no issue with you and have never had any issues with you. It seems odd to me that you're taking such an aggresssive approach based on the result of a single match. You're welcome to your opinions, of course, but if you can't take my word at face value that I mark articles without knowing their authorship, there isn't much I can do. Unles you sit next to me as I mark, I can't prove anything to you. I'm not sure what dishonest track record I have that you're using to base your theory upon.
- Your passion is to be applauded, but I would ask you to put that passion to work for F7s rather than against it. (And believe me, making accusations that you can't back up and personally insulting people definitely works against the game.)

Now, with that out of the way, what sort of marking structure would you prefer? I asked you this same question in the marking criteria thread but I don't recall you answering it directly.

 

[griffo346]

Jess

first thing i have noticed is that doesnt matter what team is playing bags they either lose with big margins or close or even draws.

coming from a team with a lack of depth it is hard to compete and with some of the behind sh*t as you rightfuly said we wont get new blood in.

Back when i captain the cougars we had a solid side 5 articles every week and still missed out on finals which again is disheartning which led me to closing the doors coz players didnt want to come back.

but some have and found new pastures which is great but now again i find myself in a struggling team once again trying to compete but i just think we wont against the big guns like the bags,panthers,titans etc

so i like f7s dont get me wrong the concept is great but we need a change ( AS I KEEP PUSHING EVERY OFF SEASON IT JUST CANT BE ABOUT RUGBY LEAGUE) it needs different sports

 

[dubopov]

Jessbass .. I'll go through these points quickly ..

- I marked all matches (as I will continue to do) without knowing the identity of the author.

possibly true but irrelevant .. at least 4 and most likely 5 of our articles are recognisable as ours ..

- I didn't see 25 errors in Big Pete's article, but he did get penalised for non-grammatical flaws.

You should look more closely ..

- I noted more than 3 grammatical errors in your piece, hence the mid-range mark. I offered to help you by showing you how you could improve, and you didn't take me up on that offer. But that offer stands.

pray tell, what are your credentials as a 'grammatician' ? I wouldn't want your advice on my grammar as I doubt whether it would be accurate information. This was your comment on the errors in your marking summation -There were a few grammatical blips, which was unfortunate, because it hindered your score slightly

- I didn't know Mungo Wilkes was a former Dragons player. I'd never heard of him until I read your article - or at least didn't recall his name. I've only been following league since 1995, so there are a lot of former players whose names I don't recognise.

Wilkes isn't a former player - he's a ficticious character that I've used several times - no doubt a lot of people who read my stories would know the name ..

- I offered suggestions on how you could further eliminate any hints as to which team you belong to, although I think that's a non-issue if you are willing to accept the word of the referee in question when he states his marking process and his yearning for neutrality.

covered above

- I have been in favour of, (and continue to be in favour of), a marking guideline to assist players and referees alike. I do, however, also have to acknowledge that some are opposed to such an approach. As such, a semblance of middle ground seems the most sensible approach. (A "something is better than nothing" compromise.)

irrelevant

***EDITED: No PMs are to be made public except your own.***

- I take no issue with you and have never had any issues with you. It seems odd to me that you're taking such an aggresssive approach based on the result of a single match. You're welcome to your opinions, of course, but if you can't take my word at face value that I mark articles without knowing their authorship, there isn't much I can do. Unles you sit next to me as I mark, I can't prove anything to you. I'm not sure what dishonest track record I have that you're using to base your theory upon.

I find marking to be somewhat random .. AND quite frequently, comments made in summation are at odds with the mark given ..

- Your passion is to be applauded, but I would ask you to put that passion to work for F7s rather than against it. (And believe me, making accusations that you can't back up and personally insulting people definitely works against the game.)

My F7 'passion' is primarily to team, team-mates and self ..

Now, with that out of the way, what sort of marking structure would you prefer? - a fair one .. last year we quite often reached a concensus that we were harshly treated in marking and that teams who had been successful were automatically deemed to be good = reputation seemed to determine some outcomes.

My biggest query is why mark out of 100 when less than 80 is rarely given ?

 

[DRAGONZ_RULE]

As an F7s novice in my 2nd season, I might not be qualified to really say anything, but I will anyway, and people can choose to ignore it or otherwise.

1. Whenever we have played Newtown or Gold Coast, we have felt that both our marks have not been as high as we felt they should be, and that our opposition's marks are higher than they should be.

2. In R1, 2011, we all sat there after the game thinking that we had not only gotten over the line against the Titans, but wiped the floor with them. We ended up losing by a big margin when you look at the average losing margins in F7s matches ... which in itself is an interesting concept, as I am able to clearly discern substantial disparity in article quality across teams in a match where the final score ends up being something like 435 - 432 ...

3. In the match in question, I ended up receiving a MOTM award for my article. I have shown my article to a number of people external to LU, and also shown them the article from a Titans player which scored exactly the same (91). I did not tell them that I wrote one of the articles. Every single person I asked was in agreement that the article I wrote was MUCH better than the other one.

4. Going off the back of that, naturally queries are raised as to whether the historically strong teams get high marks based on reputation. Whilst the Titans team certainly are not, for the most part, producing poor quality, it is fair to say that the standard of their articles has dropped from where it was 2 years ago (and yes, when I get bored at home I sometimes go and read previous F7s match threads, because it is quite enjoyable). For whatever reason, though, they continue to score just as highly as they did before.

5. I have nothing against any of the writers for the Titans (or Bluebags) and I always enjoy reading their articles.

6. I raised with my Team Captain, Dubopov, the issue of articles being marked out of 100. This is because it is so much easier for the marker to add on 1-2 marks for each article of one team, take away 1-2 marks for each article of the other, and you have a 10-20 point difference overall without anyone being the wiser. I do not suggest that this is in fact happening, but the potential for it to happen remains wide open with a scoring system which marks out of 100 and allows for so much marker subjectivity (which apparently is not allowed to be called into question, ever).

7. I propose that articles return to being marked out of 10, and that marks are only given in full numbers (rather than 7.4 / 10, which changes nothing). That way, docking people whole marks involves a substantial change, and it would likely be much easier to pick up on any allegations of bias etc.

8. In only one year, I have gone from being really excited to write F7s articles to thinking it's a chore. The reason for this is that I, along with a number of people on my team, feel that as a team we won't get the marks we deserve. I have read some articles by Dubopov which, when compared to other F7s articles which score 90, I would score at 93+ ... and yet he ends up with a solid, dependable but ultimately unspectacular 86-88 almost every round.

9. I guess I will continue writing articles when requested, as I want to help out my team, I don't want to let Dubopov down, and whilst I don't specifically enjoy writing for the F7s competition (due to my aforementioned concerns), I nevertheless enjoy writing in and of itself.

Apologies for the long post. Feel free to disregard.

 

[Rexxy]

Titanic wrote:

" (1) After the 2009 Grand Final where one player blatantly broke the most basic rule of the competition (too many words by a long way - something like 35) and after following the due process and having that rejected because it was unsportsmanlike, I started a campaign to standardise the refereeing process."

---

I suspected that this was the alpha and omega of this argument. I didn't respond to the hoopla at the time due to "protocol", and I regret that I should have.

My WIKI bit was deliberately a very experimental piece, but I was damned sure not to add to the competition another rigidly formatted, scholarly article. But more on the tweedy barfmat of academia later.

My Forum Seven Article was written and rewritten and rewritten in WORD (my native tongue), and copied back forth to the Forum each time. As I modified I went back and pasted in the text, again and again and again.

and of course it was all at the last minute.

Along the way a simple human mistake was made and the intro that was in the forum version remained, while the body in WORD was word counted at 750. The "WORd version" of the article was on 750, but the intro, which was in italics which I overlooked, took it over.

Now people write preambles all the time, and it was clearly not the body of the article, and thats what the ref saw, and that was valid. It stood on its own.

and if people had taken the time they probably would have deduced this. besides anyone who reads my stuff knows I am as bereft as I am lazy, and believe Over writing is a wank.

What followed was some terse remarks in the Grand Final competition thread - a snide backhander - when i know if the gumboot was on the other foot, that would not have been the case.

Then came allegations, that certain members said the comp was rigged to give the bags a win, and willow a milestone.

And neither were the case, it was as innocent as I have said. I Just should have said it while the maelstrom was doing whatever it is maelstroms do.

So as for "one player blatantly broke the most basic rule of the competition" neither is true.

Which brings me to why that piece was so important and the reason i was proud of it in the first place.

Forget the well meaning criteria and matrix arguments. The comp will die without making concessions to other restrictive format rules. Why 750 words, why mark out of 1000, why no multi media entries that can be audio, video, mashups (like my wiki article)?

Those marking criteria are so last century and so irrelevant to the majority of bloggers on LU. Most of us can squeeze out a brain fart, but not a cerebral turd.

It should eb about allowing free form expression independent of the yoke of conformity and convention. It should be about guys like Gorilla who risk everything by getting ZERO, which has happened, that give this competition a frisson - not some 748, 749, 750 word essay that fits a preconceived straight jacket.


time to reinvent or die


number of words 409.

 

[Jesbass]

Jess

first thing i have noticed is that doesnt matter what team is playing bags they either lose with big margins or close or even draws.

coming from a team with a lack of depth it is hard to compete and with some of the behind sh*t as you rightfuly said we wont get new blood in.

Back when i captain the cougars we had a solid side 5 articles every week and still missed out on finals which again is disheartning which led me to closing the doors coz players didnt want to come back.

but some have and found new pastures which is great but now again i find myself in a struggling team once again trying to compete but i just think we wont against the big guns like the bags,panthers,titans etc

so i like f7s dont get me wrong the concept is great but we need a change ( AS I KEEP PUSHING EVERY OFF SEASON IT JUST CANT BE ABOUT RUGBY LEAGUE) it needs different sports

It's true that the Bluebags have for a long time been the benchmark to beat - and in recent times, the Titans have probably shared that mantle. I know that as a player, the Bluebags were the team we always wanted to beat more than anybody else. I still remember our first victory over Newtown like it was yesterday.

But I wonder if it was not that there was any favouritism, but that they were just better than us?

In the past, the idea of a player draft has been suggested to spread the talent more evenly, but the major problem with that is it means players have to play for a team that they might not want to represent. Look at the Dragons players, for example. They're really proud to represent their team - but forcing them to play for another team might see them lost to the game.

I know that for me, it was the Warriors, the Kiwis, or nobody.

As far as other sports, I can't see them being incorporated, but I'm always willing to discuss it. I think it raises a heap of challenges that I don't think are easily dealt with, and it also moves away from the main focus of the Forum 7s, which is that it's a writing competition about rugby league.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I think there would be a mass exodus if F7s ever lost its rugby league focus.

 

[Willow]

Back when i captain the cougars we had a solid side 5 articles every week and still missed out on finals

I remember this very well - it was in 2008. You might have been beaten by better teams on the day, but I really thought the spirit of the F7s was there for all to see in the Cougars team. To me, it was about competing and getting all five posts in. Unfortunately we didn't have the five post bonus point back then.

Here's the ladder from 2008: http://www.forumsevens.com.au/images/table_2008_09.gif

IMO, the Cougars certainly deserved to be in the finals in 2008.

After that I started pushing hard for a bonus point to be given to the team that got all five posts in. It was purely inspired by the Cougars effort that year. If the bonus point was in place in 2008, the Cougars would have made the finals.

The point is, a regulation change was forced by the situation, the Cougars were moral finalists in 2008. It's unfortunate that you guys had less posts in 2009.

 

[Jesbass]

Jessbass .. I'll go through these points quickly ..

- I marked all matches (as I will continue to do) without knowing the identity of the author.

possibly true but irrelevant .. at least 4 and most likely 5 of our articles are recognisable as ours ..

As previously stated, at the time of marking, only 1 was clearly from a Dragons player to me, and in hindsight, 2 were.

However, authorship shouldn't even be an issue.

- I didn't see 25 errors in Big Pete's article, but he did get penalised for non-grammatical flaws.

You should look more closely ..

If I can find spare time outside of working two jobs, being a young father, and volunteering my time here, I'd be happy to.

- I noted more than 3 grammatical errors in your piece, hence the mid-range mark. I offered to help you by showing you how you could improve, and you didn't take me up on that offer. But that offer stands.

pray tell, what are your credentials as a 'grammatician' ? I wouldn't want your advice on my grammar as I doubt whether it would be accurate information. This was your comment on the errors in your marking summation -There were a few grammatical blips, which was unfortunate, because it hindered your score slightly

I didn't realise I required credentials as a 'grammatician' to referee. Why not provide something irenic to this discussion?

I haven't counted the errors I noted in your article, but there were more than 3. Your mark was definitely impacted as a result. If you had used better grammar, you would have undoubtedly scored a higher mark.

For the record, the offer stands.

- I didn't know Mungo Wilkes was a former Dragons player. I'd never heard of him until I read your article - or at least didn't recall his name. I've only been following league since 1995, so there are a lot of former players whose names I don't recognise.

Wilkes isn't a former player - he's a ficticious character that I've used several times - no doubt a lot of people who read my stories would know the name ..

Fair enough. I obviously haven't read many of your articles. I certainly didn't recognise the name. In fact, knowing now that he is fictitious highlights this, because I recall saying something along the lines of "I don't know if this really happened or not..."

But again, authorship shouldn't even be an issue. We either trust our volunteer referees to mark an article for its content or we don't.

- I offered suggestions on how you could further eliminate any hints as to which team you belong to, although I think that's a non-issue if you are willing to accept the word of the referee in question when he states his marking process and his yearning for neutrality.

covered above

Indeed.

- I have been in favour of, (and continue to be in favour of), a marking guideline to assist players and referees alike. I do, however, also have to acknowledge that some are opposed to such an approach. As such, a semblance of middle ground seems the most sensible approach. (A "something is better than nothing" compromise.)

irrelevant

Considering you're querying the marking methodology, the recommendation and open endorsement of a less subjective marking structure doesn't seem irrelevant to me.

***EDITED: No PMs are to be made public except your own.***

Consider my comments regarding the "Hitler" label retracted.

- I take no issue with you and have never had any issues with you. It seems odd to me that you're taking such an aggresssive approach based on the result of a single match. You're welcome to your opinions, of course, but if you can't take my word at face value that I mark articles without knowing their authorship, there isn't much I can do. Unles you sit next to me as I mark, I can't prove anything to you. I'm not sure what dishonest track record I have that you're using to base your theory upon.

I find marking to be somewhat random .. AND quite frequently, comments made in summation are at odds with the mark given ..

The marking can certainly be seen to be random. Although there's a method to the madness, it's definitely subjective. (Hence why the discussion of a marking structure isn't irrelevant.)

- Your passion is to be applauded, but I would ask you to put that passion to work for F7s rather than against it. (And believe me, making accusations that you can't back up and personally insulting people definitely works against the game.)

My F7 'passion' is primarily to team, team-mates and self ..

As it should. But not at the expense of the competition as a whole. If the competition collapses, you won't have a team to be passionate about. Put simply, there are irenic and constructive ways to query decisions, and there are divisionary ones.

I would hope that all players would lean towards the former, rather than the latter.

Now, with that out of the way, what sort of marking structure would you prefer?

- a fair one .. last year we quite often reached a concensus that we were harshly treated in marking and that teams who had been successful were automatically deemed to be good = reputation seemed to determine some outcomes.

My biggest query is why mark out of 100 when less than 80 is rarely given ?

I can't speak for last year. I wasn't here, (representative season excluded), and I didn't referee. I know that my own approach has nothing to do with reputations. As I've previously stated, these discussions won't cause me to be biased for or against the Dragons or any other team.

As far as the 100 scoring process goes, I wouldn't have a clue. I've only refereed 2 matches. I would think one of the game's veterans, (Willow, Big Mick, Gorilla et al), would have a better understanding of that process.

On the tendency for marks to be 80+, I would wager that too many harsh marks would drive people away from F7s, so there tends to be trend towards the 80+ region. (Although I have seen - and received - lower marks.)

How would you define "a fair one"?

 

[Timmah]

I've seen bits and pieces of this and I've gotta say - gentlemen, relax.

As the original poster said, work together or the comp dies.

To me, the problem is stuff like this. Too uptight about stuff:

" (1) After the 2009 Grand Final where one player blatantly broke the most basic rule of the competition (too many words by a long way - something like 35) and after following the due process and having that rejected because it was unsportsmanlike, I started a campaign to standardise the refereeing process."

Bottom line is we're all here to write. Exercise common sense when marking the competition. Pretty obvious.

Too many egos in here, JMO

 

[Jesbass]

As an F7s novice in my 2nd season, I might not be qualified to really say anything, but I will anyway, and people can choose to ignore it or otherwise.

Everyone is welcome to share, DRAGONZ_RULE. Welcome to the discussion.

1. Whenever we have played Newtown or Gold Coast, we have felt that both our marks have not been as high as we felt they should be, and that our opposition's marks are higher than they should be.

I think every team thinks that way about almost every match they partake in. I know we certainly did. Often the articles that we thought were the strongest got the lowest marks, the the weakest ones got the highest ones. Such is the nature of a subjective marking system.

2. In R1, 2011, we all sat there after the game thinking that we had not only gotten over the line against the Titans, but wiped the floor with them. We ended up losing by a big margin when you look at the average losing margins in F7s matches ... which in itself is an interesting concept, as I am able to clearly discern substantial disparity in article quality across teams in a match where the final score ends up being something like 435 - 432 ...

I don't think I've ever seen a team wipe the floor with another, except when one team has posted fewer articles. 8 points is not a large margin. A couple of points here and there, and the result could have been different.

3. In the match in question, I ended up receiving a MOTM award for my article. I have shown my article to a number of people external to LU, and also shown them the article from a Titans player which scored exactly the same (91). I did not tell them that I wrote one of the articles. Every single person I asked was in agreement that the article I wrote was MUCH better than the other one.

That's fine. But with minimal marking structure, completely contrasting articles can score the same mark for entirely different reasons. This is why I think a marking guideline would be of benefit to the competition.

4. Going off the back of that, naturally queries are raised as to whether the historically strong teams get high marks based on reputation. Whilst the Titans team certainly are not, for the most part, producing poor quality, it is fair to say that the standard of their articles has dropped from where it was 2 years ago (and yes, when I get bored at home I sometimes go and read previous F7s match threads, because it is quite enjoyable). For whatever reason, though, they continue to score just as highly as they did before.

Reading through older articles is great if you have the time! It's a good way to get inspired and find article ideas.

Contrasting marks across seasons is fraught with danger. Different referees and different marking criteria, (whilst still being particularly subjective), will always lead to some form of confusion.

5. I have nothing against any of the writers for the Titans (or Bluebags) and I always enjoy reading their articles.

I doubt anyone thinks opposite to this, DRAGONZ_RULE. :thumn

6. I raised with my Team Captain, Dubopov, the issue of articles being marked out of 100. This is because it is so much easier for the marker to add on 1-2 marks for each article of one team, take away 1-2 marks for each article of the other, and you have a 10-20 point difference overall without anyone being the wiser. I do not suggest that this is in fact happening, but the potential for it to happen remains wide open with a scoring system which marks out of 100 and allows for so much marker subjectivity (which apparently is not allowed to be called into question, ever).

Your captain has just raised this now, and as I noted, I don't know what the reason for the change was. This is, as far as I'm aware, the first time this has been brought up in the discussion. I see no harm in exploring it, but changing to an "out of 10" system mid-season is something I'd be against.

7. I propose that articles return to being marked out of 10, and that marks are only given in full numbers (rather than 7.4 / 10, which changes nothing). That way, docking people whole marks involves a substantial change, and it would likely be much easier to pick up on any allegations of bias etc.

Oops, looks like I jumped comments a bit. Let's discuss it, absolutely. But I wouldn't want anything changed during the season. (Perhaps the representative season is an option, though.)

8. In only one year, I have gone from being really excited to write F7s articles to thinking it's a chore. The reason for this is that I, along with a number of people on my team, feel that as a team we won't get the marks we deserve. I have read some articles by Dubopov which, when compared to other F7s articles which score 90, I would score at 93+ ... and yet he ends up with a solid, dependable but ultimately unspectacular 86-88 almost every round.

As I've said previously, I wasn't here last year, except for playing for the Kiwis. I can't speak for other referees or their marking methods. I can only speak for myself.

For the record, I know that dubopov could have scored a better mark in Round 1, 2011, and I've offered to help point out some errors to him. He seems resistant, and that's fine - but that could possibly be a contributing factor.

9. I guess I will continue writing articles when requested, as I want to help out my team, I don't want to let Dubopov down, and whilst I don't specifically enjoy writing for the F7s competition (due to my aforementioned concerns), I nevertheless enjoy writing in and of itself.

I'm grateful that you have chosen to stick around, but I'd much prefer that you rediscovered your passion. Do you think a marking guideline would help to arrest your concerns?

Apologies for the long post. Feel free to disregard.

No need to apologise, and no need to disregard.

 

[Jesbass]

I've seen bits and pieces of this and I've gotta say - gentlemen, relax.

As the original poster said, work together or the comp dies.

To me, the problem is stuff like this. Too uptight about stuff:

Bottom line is we're all here to write. Exercise common sense when marking the competition. Pretty obvious.

Too many egos in here, JMO

+1

We just need to work together for the common good.

 

[dubopov]

started this thread too late .. Souths and Rooster combo has already imploded ..

 

[paulquinn49]

Wow...thank god that the CNTDN have never caused any dramas.

The 7's community could really take a lesson from CNTDN

 

[bartman]

Wow, what a thread.

Coby, not sure if it's been picked up yet - the link from the sidebar in the forums to F7s Central since the upgrade needs a dot au on the end as well (404 not found).

In the interest of open diiscussion... my most recent PM reply to Titanic:

Thanks for the clandestine (and now open) mention of me in relation to this issue W.... Don't fret, I won't be bothered to give you a war and peace personal response (in public or private).

However in the context of this thread/discussion I'd like to state that (imo) one F7s player not able to welcome new thought in the form of a discussion about the concept of an F7s marking framework for the future, shouldn't result in any F7s captain seemingly charting a course of action to openly fracture the F7s on that player's behalf. No one wanted or wants anyone gone from F7s - that's just inflammatory stuff, throwing the toys out of the playpen.

Jes, for what it's I think you're doing a great job with the F7s and I support your method of refereeing and cannot see how bias (rather than humanity) was involved? For those who have an issue with one recent match result, it's natural to blow off steam in the moment - but then in F7s we all tend to get told by those around us to pull our heads in, and then take any grumbles or unconstructive stuff back behind closed doors (team locker rooms or PMs) - that has been the F7s way.

Last I checked the Member Guidelines state posting another person's PMs on the open forum without permission is not allowed? It's a simple matter of integrity and I expected better from those concerned than to need to settle anything through the open F7s forum/threads in the current playpen manner. Talk about implosion...

Jes, good luck with pulling this all back together. But until the club-based paranoia that leads to attitudes/statements such as "If Mort comes back, then you'll be off the hook" is cast out from F7s, then I think you'll have a big job on your hands.... Not a great loss I know, but since there seems such resistance to new thought in improving F7s over summer (and now culminating in this debacle), I resign as a non-playing referee, and wish everyone positively involved in F7s the best of luck in whatever its future holds. It has been a great competition to be involved in over the years.

 

[Big Mick]

Holy crap.

I just read through this thread.

I haven't seen this many people having periods since the lesbian convention.

Think everyone should just take a few days away from this thread and chill out a little bit. Emotions always run high in F7's...god knows they have for me on occassions, but the easiest way to settle is at a point just stop, take a step back...and just move on to do what is best for this game...have fun writing articles with great guys in your team.

 

[Bubbles]

Wow, now that was a read and a half! I am not an incredibly active member on the forums; I don't comment a lot on anything, preferring rather to read rather than get involved in bickering, but I have been a part of the F7's comp for 9 years now (except for one year when my life decided to go topsy-turvy on me). The reason that I've been involved for so long is quite simple, this comp combines two of my favourite things in the world; footy and writing - a match made in heaven.

Now, I have nothing but respect for the people behind the scenes (although the curtain's been drawn back now!) who make this comp possible. However, from a personal point of view, I can't tell you how shattered I was to look in the game thread this morning and find that I was the ONLY Souths player to post an article. Sure, it was a quickly, roughly put together piece done in my spare time (ha), but I made the effort. So, perhaps you can understand how disappointed I was to read through this thread and hear all the in-fighting and crap that's been going on and to find that the South's captain was in here yesterday talking about how it's no longer fun to write articles, at the same time I was busting a boiler trying to get something, anything in, to find that I'm the only one who bothered!!!!

As for the debate, to be honest, there has only been one article of mine that I really felt I didn't get the mark I deserved, but I can live with that. It is true that every time I read an article where there is some heart-wrenching stuff in it, I immediately mark it in my mind as the winner, as this is how it seems to go a lot. I have only written one such article, back in 2006 and only because it truly was the story in me at the time. While I know the sob stories will often do it, that's not my style (I prefer humour - in life as well) and I continue to stick by my writing abilities rather than try and manufacture something for the mark.

Bottom line; you're never going to please everyone all the time, but from someone who has been in a team that is struggling to produce every week (for the last couple of years), this bickering between the powerhouse team's is just so counter-productive; I don't know how you do, but ffs put egos aside please; sh*t could be worse, you could put in every game only to find you're the only one on the field to take on the other team :crazy:!!

 

[Amadean]

^ +1

Well said Bubbles.