apterous.org

Dave Robjohns One thing I want to discuss/sort out before Season 18 starts is any solution for rewarding getting games played. This could be things like getting an additional point for playing a match (e.g. 4 win 2 draw 1 loss) or getting bonus point(s) for completing all games, a bonus for being the first player in the league/a division to finish their games. Could also have most games played as a tie breaker when points are level, before "goal difference". Other ideas welcomed!

It seemed there was demand for something like this so would be interested to hear any thoughts over the next week or so and then probably a vote - cheers :)

Fiona T I think an additional point for playing works - so a player who's played and lost will be above a player who hasn't played. But it should only be for games actually played - adjudicated games should not get the bonus points or that defeats the purpose of motivating people to get their games played! I don't think there should be a bonus for being first - people shouldn't be penalised for holidays etc, and people should be pestered either! re: tiebreaker - extra points would effectively obviate this, but if you're not doing bonus points I'd say that's a goer - obviously unplayed games affect score difference!

Dave Kempshall Hey Dave - I agree with your first suggestion (and Fiona's opinion). Extra point per game played is worth testing. If I remember correctly, there was a season where divisions were split into two phases - one where the division was split into 2 groups of 6 and everyone played everyone, then the top 3 in each played off in a group for 2 x promotion spots, with the bottom 3 from each entering a group that played each other with the winner getting a playoff spot. That worked quite well in my opinion as it split the games up into two deadlines and fewer games to play with each half of the season.

Roger Peak How about . . . Deduct one point for every game not played ? So in D5 I am currently W4 L1 Unplayed 7, so I would be 12pts minus 7 pts = 5 pts. That feels like an effective penalty and an incentive for me to do something about it !

Anthony Endsor Yes I agree with the idea of an extra point for playing. I remember one season I finished bottom on points difference having played all my games and players above me hadn't played, so therefore hadn't lost and I was below them because of it. That season Dave I think you sacrificed a promotion to let me stay in the division, but it was far from a satisfactory or fair outcome. Would have been a lot better with this suggested system I think.

Bailey Cowell I don’t see the point in this; it’s supposed to be a competition of ability, not who can get the games done. Just keep the scoring format the same

Dave Kempshall Bailey - I think the issue is some people not getting their games done, which impacts on people who are trying to get their games done but can't. The outcome is some people finish above others, not because of their ability, but because they've luckily managed to play the less active players when others' haven't been so lucky.

Adam Latchford I like Rogers idea more - make it a penalty not a reward and it'll work better to motivate them

Dave Robjohns I guess they are essentially the same thing, the two tables will be identical in order whether it's +1 for playing or -1 until it's played. But I'd say it edges it just as it makes the final table more comparable to previous seasons once someone's played all their games

Dave Robjohns I guess now it's a matter of whether we think the balance is right. Suppose someone played all their games and had a 3W 1D 9L record (10 points/23 points), they would finish above someone on 5W 2L 6Unplayed (9 points/22 points) - do we like that?

Something that would affect the table less would be the just using games played as the first tie break - that way it's still never good to not play a game, but possibly does less to encourage people to play.

I guess my preference is possibly the former in the hope we get more games done and reach a world with no time consuming and potentially controversial adjudications :P

Dave Kempshall I think Roger's idea is the best suggestion and the balance feels right. The using games played as a first tie-break only partially works. It doesn't motivate someone not in the mix for promotion / relegation to play their games, which has an impact on the people who they fail to play.

Dave Kempshall I know that the person can try and claim the win by demonstrating an effort to play the game, but then that's not ideal as it potential impacts a rival who did play the inactive player and potentially drew or lost.

Andy SC How about this for unplayed games:

If you make an effort to play a game that gets unplayed and the opponent doesn't, you got 1.5 points and the opponent loses a point. If both make an effort and it goes unplayed then both get 0.5 points. Kind of a combination of everything above

Roger Peak Re Dave R's comment above I think it is fine for someone with several unplayed games to finish below someone who has played all theirs but has lost most of them. It feels right that the penalty sits with the person who has partipated less !

Anthony Endsor I agree with Andy SC's idea to a point, although I would only give points to a player where a definite time had been arranged and the opponent had failed to turn up. Anyone can say 'fancy a game sometime' without stating a definite time. To me that is insufficient effort to warrant avoiding losing points.

Thomas Carey Imo the 'who made more effort' thing works well for knockout tournaments where someone has to advance, but for a league thing like this I prefer the bonus point for every game played (or penalty for everything unplayed, since that's the same idea). If you are actively trying to get everything played, you'll get most of your games done anyway.

Fiona T Awarding points for effort defeats the object IMO

Andy SC For Everything Counts Round Robin stage, I don't bother doing anything with unplayed games but then there would be too much games to go through and make a decision on.

Hazel Drury I actually got relegated last season due to the final 2 games left to be played in my league being played 1 day after the deadline and counting on the league table. I had played all my games before the deadline and at the end of the original deadline I wasn't in relegation zone. I think Dave said he’d give a 1 day extension to get all the games in the league played.
Personally I thought this was harsh at the time :(

Dave Robjohns Interesting, good to hear some opinions on adjudications. Losing the faff around sifting out aptomails sent too late/aptomails for games that did get played, it would be quite a big time save for me so I wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of them :P

So we could end up with something like:

-1 point per unplayed game

No adjudications at all

Totally fixed deadline

Games expunged if someone plays half or less (hopefully minimises issues when people are hard to get hold of)

...
Thoughts on that 'solution'?!

Dave Kempshall I like it Dave. Only thing is, I do think some flexibility is needed on adjudication. Having an outright no adjudication policy could have the opposite effect that this is hoping to solve. For example, you and I are well clear in 2nd (me) and 3rd (you) in the table, both have to play each as our last game. There is no motivation for me to play that game at all. So with the hard adjudication rule, I would benefit from just ignoring your requests to schedule a game.

Andy SC I would say -1 point if absolutely no effort to play the game by any of the players.

My idea from above kind of half rewards it but not fully. Whatever happens, it won't be a perfect solution.

Dan Spinks 'Games expunged if someone plays half or less'. I'm not a fan of that. seems unfair for someone to earn points early on then have them removed on the final day because the opponent stopped playing games

Dan Spinks I know that's always been a rule, just never really liked it

Dave Robjohns True, just equally harsh on someone (in 3rd, say) losing out because someone only played 3 games including a loss to the person in 2nd then went AWOL. Never know what the right balance is for the minimum number of games to keep in, maybe half is a little high - been floor of a third last few seasons iirc

Chris Hare There seems to be some not-particularly-joined-up thinking going on here.

If you want to encourage people to get their games played, then you need to reward both those who play and those who make a genuine effort to do so, but are thwarted by a lack of co-operation from their opponent(s). That means you need an adjudication system.

Introducing a points penalty for unplayed games doesn't change that. In fact, by increasing the likelihood that players will be trying to arrange their fixtures by apto-mail (to make sure they don't lose points), you increase the likelihood that unplayed games might need to be awarded to a player that's made an effort.

For the record, if there's a change needed here, my preference is for number of played games to become the first tie-break criterion.

Dave Robjohns We probably need some sort of adjudication for (hopefully) fringe cases, but need controls to make them indisputable, easy to verify, and suitably clear that the effort is one way. The current requirement is one message at least 5 full days in advance, which I then adjudicate if there's much impact on the table.

I probably want to require something like:
A first message sent at least 14 days before the deadline (I tend to send out a reminder approx 2 weeks before the end already)

A second chaser sent at least a week before the end

If these are not replied to, a third message (possibly directly to me) claiming a victory in the final few days of the season

Obviously there will never be any obligation to play your games early in the season, but I think attempting to organise a game at least 2 weeks in advance gives ample time to organise something, and if there's no response by the end of the season after a chaser, awarding a win is fine - still -1 to both players as unplaye

Dave Robjohns The tricky ones are still what happens where both players respond but fail to arrange a time - not sure on a consistent rule to adjudicate those

Dave Robjohns So probably time we get some vote going on this change as usual. Votes will be counted by "nicing" comments. Here we will be voting for the changed system against the existing system. Our objective was to find a new system that encourages games to be played, so unplayed games and adjudications are less problematic/controversial/harsh at the end of a season.

Please don't comment after the two voting comments below, so they remain visible. Ty!

Dave Robjohns Option 1: Changing.

The new system would give -1 point per unplayed game (points applied at the start of the season for simplicity)

There would be stricter adjudication rules to encourage earlier chasing of unplayed games

There would be no extensions to the season deadline to allow pivotal games to finish at the end

Head to head record used before points difference if points are tied