Rule set articles

[Njok]

Coming straight out of my google doc, which is very much a WIP. Final rule set should be on the site, although i do think having a completed doc as well is a must.

I will divide these into a section per post in order to keep things tidy.

Like the post + no comment means you have seen the section and have nothing to remark. If a comment leads to a change, i will post the adjusted section again.

@Zarkith could you do the same for the parts you've been working on?

Now without further ado:

Section I. League format

This is going off the example of 8 per division and numbers might therefor change in the final version

 

[Njok]

Section III. Match format

c. Demi suggested opening the match 24 hours before the start to give more room to discuss rescheduling. I agree (but forgot to make a new screenshot).

g. I'm not too happy with a system like this, but am drawing a blank atm on what a fairer solution would be. Suggestions please.

j. I despise banning, but i know some of you think Saltspray should be banned. Discussion point!

 

[SquiddiamFancyson]

Nice work @Njok and @Zarkith! First, some comments on the Match Format, since that's what I can give best input on.

Regarding Demi's suggestion (C), I fully support it. It gives people no excuse if rescheduling is required and it also makes G more justifiable.

I would actually go as far as to say I think G is too lenient currently. I'm surprised you think it's unfair. We could possibly make an exception if there's a valid reason for the team being unable to reschedule. It would require proof, but mean they don't receive a strike?

J. I think Saltspray RM should be banned for being a flat out terrible map/mode. That being said, I don't think we should ban anything prematurely nor without consulting players. If we post these rules and multiple people express the same concern regarding a map/mode, then perhaps we can take it to a vote.

Finally, concerning League Format, can you clarify D4 for me? Which seed wins, the underdog or the higher seed? I feel if there's that significant a tie, the lowest seed deserves the win for playing at a high enough standard to tie with a higher seed.

 

[Typhlosion09]

Imo no saltspray shouldn't be banned. I can't tell if you say this cause RM is bad here or if it's caused it isn't flipped 180 degrees. Either way if it's cause of RM and camping that's a valid strategy that people will have to get used to(plus everyone can do it) If it's cause it doesn't flip all the way then it still shouldn't be banned cause a change of winning percentage from 50% to 50.1% really isn't enough to matter enough. Salt spray and all maps in the future should stay, they're all fair enough.

 

[Njok]

Nice work @Njok and @Zarkith! First, some comments on the Match Format, since that's what I can give best input on.

Regarding Demi's suggestion (C), I fully support it. It gives people no excuse if rescheduling is required and it also makes G more justifiable.

I would actually go as far as to say I think G is too lenient currently. I'm surprised you think it's unfair. We could possibly make an exception if there's a valid reason for the team being unable to reschedule. It would require proof, but mean they don't receive a strike?

J. I think Saltspray RM should be banned for being a flat out terrible map/mode. That being said, I don't think we should ban anything prematurely nor without consulting players. If we post these rules and multiple people express the same concern regarding a map/mode, then perhaps we can take it to a vote.

Finally, concerning League Format, can you clarify D4 for me? Which seed wins, the underdog or the higher seed? I feel if there's that significant a tie, the lowest seed deserves the win for playing at a high enough standard to tie with a higher seed.

G. Penalties

The problem i see with this is if a team decides to be *ssholes and just refuse to play at anything other than default when they know their opponent can't make that. Imo we can't punish a team that is able to play at default time, so that would mean we have to give the penalty to the team that did try to reschedule. That said, once you sign up for this it would make sense that you keep schedules open at default time.

D4. Season rankings

I am talking about the final rankings of a division, in case they tie on the first 3 criteria. So obviously the higher seed would take the higher ranking in that case. It wouldn't make much sense to give that for the lower seeded team because seeding is also something a team worked for.

On a related note, a few seasons in we'd have our own seeding system of course so that would make it even more clear: the team with the better historic results in LUTI will take higher ranking in case it comes to D4 (which by the way isn't very likely to happen).

 

[SquiddiamFancyson]

G. Penalties

The problem i see with this is if a team decides to be *ssholes and just refuse to play at anything other than default when they know their opponent can't make that. Imo we can't punish a team that is able to play at default time, so that would mean we have to give the penalty to the team that did try to reschedule. That said, once you sign up for this it would make sense that you keep schedules open at default time.

D4. Season rankings

I am talking about the final rankings of a division, in case they tie on the first 3 criteria. So obviously the higher seed would take the higher ranking in that case. It wouldn't make much sense to give that for the lower seeded team because seeding is also something a team worked for.

On a related note, a few seasons in we'd have our own seeding system of course so that would make it even more clear: the team with the better historic results in LUTI will take higher ranking in case it comes to D4 (which by the way isn't very likely to happen).

G. Yeah to be honest they know what they're signing up for. I think the rules present things clearly and I think it's obvious we won't enjoy kicking someone out, so other than that it's up to the team.

D4. When do seeds change though? I was under the assumption seeds remained static until the end of a season, where they then get updated. The reason I thought the low seed deserved the win was because, say seed 2 and seed 11 have performed equally well in the season and tie, then wouldn't season 11 deserve more credit for excelling? If seeds are updated after every game, then what you said makes sense and I misunderstood how it worked.

 

[Njok]

G. Yeah to be honest they know what they're signing up for. I think the rules present things clearly and I think it's obvious we won't enjoy kicking someone out, so other than that it's up to the team.

D4. When do seeds change though? I was under the assumption seeds remained static until the end of a season, where they then get updated. The reason I thought the low seed deserved the win was because, say seed 2 and seed 11 have performed equally well in the season and tie, then wouldn't season 11 deserve more credit for excelling? If seeds are updated after every game, then what you said makes sense and I misunderstood how it worked.

That's a fair point. I am talking about the seeds that we used pre season yeah.

The thing is though, that one team is seeded higher because they performed better overall until now. Which means in your scenario we would give a team the advantage based on league results only. But they performed equally in the league so that shouldn't affect the overall rankings (ie the higher ranked team will still be higher ranked on the overall ranking).

 

[SquiddiamFancyson]

That's a fair point. I am talking about the seeds that we used pre season yeah.

The thing is though, that one team is seeded higher because they performed better overall until now. Which means in your scenario we would give a team the advantage based on league results only. But they performed equally in the league so that shouldn't affect the overall rankings (ie the higher ranked team will still be higher ranked on the overall ranking).

I'd kinda appreciate other peoples input on this because I'm unsure if my rationale is faulty, but I think this way is kinda unfair. I mean, seed 2 in the hypothetical scenario won't drop significantly, they just end up one place lower in the table, and seed 11 would only be one place higher. It almost seems that if we let higher seeds win through their previous success, we've given them an extra line of defense that makes them harder to overtake. I realise it will almost never come down to seed for a tiebreaker anyway, but I do think a lower seed deserves more credit for achieving the same result as a higher seed, as the higher seed should have much more pressure on them to continue to excel. I'm always for supporting the underdogs, and I think this would encourage lower seeds to keep playing more, but I understand this point is overall quite trivial and I don't object if the majority supports the system as it's currently proposed.

 

[Njok]

I'd kinda appreciate other peoples input on this because I'm unsure if my rationale is faulty, but I think this way is kinda unfair. I mean, seed 2 in the hypothetical scenario won't drop significantly, they just end up one place lower in the table, and seed 11 would only be one place higher. It almost seems like if we let higher seeds win through their previous success, they've got an extra line of defense that makes them harder to overtake. I realise it will almost never come down to seed anyway, but I do think a lower seed deserves more credit for achieving the same result as a higher seed, as the higher seed should have much more pressure on themselves to continue to excel. I'm always for supporting the underdogs, and I think this would encourage lower seeds to keep playing more, but I understand this point is overall quite trivial and I don't object if the majority supports the system as it's currently proposed.

That's what this thread is for, so yeah everyone should give input.

But keep in mind that we're talking about 3 or more teams ending up tied. It's when 3 teams are tied and they all won against each other (A beats B, B beats C and C beats A) and they also dropped the exact same amount of games.

If it's 2 teams tied, the higher ranking will automatically go to the team that won in their match against the tied team (rule D2).

 

[SupersonicWaffle]

I don't think using seeds in a league makes a lot of sense other than grrouping teams by division in season 1.
We would need a method to resolve 3 way ties though. I don't like it but american football uses a pretty subjective measure in taking the difficutly of schedule into account. You could look at the average ranks of teams they've won against at the end of the season although that would mean that the team winning out had losses against worse teams than the other teams.

 

[Njok]

I don't know if I like that either. It also could end up tied in theory and we'd still need a next tie breaker.

I guess we don't necessarily have to have a tie breaker.

In case it's for a spot in the playoffs we could just let the tied teams play an extra round?

 

[Zarkith]

My section(s): https://docs.google.com/document/d/16xD0p_rfX63kFMexdA7ycyOaJHPXim3BE_7WqryVXKU/edit?usp=sharing