All Classicists are equal!

Details of how the Classicists is run.

Moderators: JonS, Buachaille, Fatmo

Re: All Classicists are equal!

Postby Zebb » 17 Aug 2010, 00:41

Do you have a better idea for criteria echo? I don't think anyone's saying these tiers are perfect reflections of peoples' levels of commitment, but that they're a close enough approximation to serve the purpose.
User avatar
Zebb
 
Posts: 2781
Joined: 02 Jul 2010, 14:32
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: All Classicists are equal!

Postby echotwo » 17 Aug 2010, 00:52

Zebb wrote:Do you have a better idea for criteria echo? I don't think anyone's saying these tiers are perfect reflections of peoples' levels of commitment, but that they're a close enough approximation to serve the purpose.


They're not, though. I've played with people who have or are eligible for membership in all categories. And there was absolutely no correlation in reliability. My experience of some of the bronze and silver members is that they are considerably more reliable (by which I mean things such as the ability to exchange 3 or more sets of messages within an orders-phase) than many of those in higher categories.

As such, abolishing them altogether would be more useful than what we have. But if people insist on having categories, then I'm happy to contribute to a discussion of what they should look like.
echotwo
 
Posts: 735
Joined: 01 Feb 2010, 19:33
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: All Classicists are equal!

Postby Zebb » 17 Aug 2010, 01:41

You're not wrong that quality of play isn't reflected in the stats at all. I mean, if he were so inclined to join, sevenoaks would qualify for a Gold membership (But would soon find himself dealing with the eviction committee, no doubt). But you have to figure he's the exception, not the rule, just like the Bronze who happens to be relatively new to the site may be a reliable and conscientious player who's always a joy to share a table with (I like to think of myself in this category with 0 NMRs, 0 surrenders, and several hundred messages sent per game if only that stat were tracking properly).

Stats are all we have to work with, so we'll work with it.
User avatar
Zebb
 
Posts: 2781
Joined: 02 Jul 2010, 14:32
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: All Classicists are equal!

Postby echotwo » 17 Aug 2010, 01:53

Zebb wrote:You're not wrong that quality of play isn't reflected in the stats at all. I mean, if he were so inclined to join, sevenoaks would qualify for a Gold membership (But would soon find himself dealing with the eviction committee, no doubt). But you have to figure he's the exception, not the rule, just like the Bronze who happens to be relatively new to the site may be a reliable and conscientious player who's always a joy to share a table with (I like to think of myself in this category with 0 NMRs, 0 surrenders, and several hundred messages sent per game if only that stat were tracking properly).

Stats are all we have to work with, so we'll work with it.


The problem with that logic is, there are more exceptions than there are rules, the way the current rules have been imposed: they have no positive feature (they don't even do what they want to do), and as we're seeing with Valoriane's membership-(non-)application, a considerable negative impact.

If it's desirable to have tiers, there would be better ways of doing so, including: scrapping any requirement to have played more than (say) 20 games; replacing the surrender-percentage with a requirement to have played the corresponding number of surrender-free games, etc.
echotwo
 
Posts: 735
Joined: 01 Feb 2010, 19:33
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: All Classicists are equal!

Postby raphtown » 17 Aug 2010, 02:12

I do agree that the surrender percentages requirement would need changing, however I am less certain of the number of games cap. The Classicists are also committed to experience, and I believe there is a difference between playing 20 and 50 games.
The Classicists are a group dedicated to reducing player NMRs.
User avatar
raphtown
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: 17 Apr 2009, 19:07
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: All Classicists are equal!

Postby his_flyness » 17 Aug 2010, 04:56

All Classicists are equal but some Classicists are more equal than others.

Sorry - I actually have no opinion on the group/issue at hand, I simply couldn't pass up the opportunity.
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli." The Godfather
User avatar
his_flyness
 
Posts: 579
Joined: 15 Jul 2009, 03:13
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1214)
All-game rating: (1209)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: All Classicists are equal!

Postby Dbmbdrmmr77 » 17 Aug 2010, 06:48

his_flyness wrote:All Classicists are equal but some Classicists are more equal than others.

Sorry - I actually have no opinion on the group/issue at hand, I simply couldn't pass up the opportunity.



Sheddy wrote:"But some are more equal than others", I hear you cry! ;)
No, This is NOT the case!



Too late!
Call me Dbm

Silver member of The Classicists.

I am THE loudest and proudest member of the Fightin' Texas Aggie Class of 2013!
User avatar
Dbmbdrmmr77
 
Posts: 260
Joined: 29 Mar 2010, 05:12
Location: Texas, USA
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: All Classicists are equal!

Postby Sheddy » 17 Aug 2010, 11:25

echotwo wrote:Yeah, it's achievable. I could start 40 or so 12-hour-deadline games now right now, submit orders for each phase, and be up to platinum within 2 weeks. That would make me less reliable, not more. Which leads in nicely to the point that if tiered membership is to give people something to aim for (a bit like a glorified prefect's badge), it's not configured to employ that function well.

My understanding is that we're looking for reliable players: who commit to a game, correspond regularly, don't miss deadlines, and don't give up bad positions. And those are the attributes we want to encourage.

....

Fundamentally, if we want to be using the tiers to encourage desirable behaviours, let's make sure we encourage the right ones. I'd much rather encourage someone to play one game at a time with 48-hour deadlines, communicating properly and contributing to complex and changing alliance-structures than to encourage someone to play 5 lower-quality games at a time. At the moment, they're neither a particularly accurate measure of reliability nor a useful way of encouraging people to become more reliable.


I don't disagree with any of what echotwo says in his lengthy post above. In fact I positively agree with all of it.


echotwo wrote:But if people insist on having categories, then I'm happy to contribute to a discussion of what they should look like.


It appears that this discussion is now well underway, although I had not originally intended it, so if you would like to please continue developing your ideas and sketch out an alternative proposal.

However, maybe it would do no harm to park this idea (and others) just for a few weeks or so and let the group settle down. I'm very aware that a lot of heat and light is being generated discussing the rules and mechanisms of the Classicists group, while only one actual game has started! I know it's the holiday season which may explain why players, especially ones averse to NMRs, aren't starting new games, but maybe we're a navel-gazing a little too much (I am as responsible as anyone for this I guess by having started this thread) rather than naval convoying.
Nation shall speak peace unto nation
- at least until spring 1901 orders are opened.

Do you dislike games spoiled by surrenders and missed orders? If so, please consider adding your name to the database of reliable players at The Classicists
Sheddy
 
Posts: 858
Joined: 31 Jul 2008, 18:57
Location: The Cotswolds
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1043)
All-game rating: (1051)
Timezone: GMT

Re: All Classicists are equal!

Postby Andrew D » 17 Aug 2010, 11:51

I agree more games need to be played Sheddy, but I think that is due to the holiday season and the fact that people have prior commitments, (such as myself). In order to join a new game, an old one must end first, (in general). Therefore I think as games start to end people will start to play Classicist games more. In a group designed to encourage high reliability and communication, I think that fewer games should be encouraged rather than more per person.

I don't think discussing this will harm that, but if others disagree then I would be happy to wait. For the moment I will therefore wait to hear other's opinions.

Andrew
On a 1 Year Hiatus from Diplomacy and Mafia.
User avatar
Andrew D
 
Posts: 1731
Joined: 10 Mar 2010, 16:11
Location: Hampshire, England
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: All Classicists are equal!

Postby AndyCooke » 17 Aug 2010, 21:36

I think that one problem is that which inflicts all management chains: that which can be measured drives the process.
A couple of years ago, in the organization in which I worked, there was a drive to reduce hardcopy holdings. One of many initiatives and processes occurring, it had such a high level of managerial input and scrutiny that you'd be forgiven for concluding that it was the most important issue affecting the organization.

It was not. By a long, long chalk. But it was the most easy, straightforward, quick and simple thing to measure and feed back upon, so the various echelons of management could not resist sticking the long-handled screwdriver in as often as possible. They'd found something that they could affect predictably and easily. The fact that it could be measured so straightforwardly drove the organization's apparent needs.

We've got a set of attributes that are easy to measure - are they measuring what we want?

We've got two fundamental criteria: we want reliable players of good communication standards. Reliable now.
(Actually, the constitution notes four criteria: respect, reliability, experience, and humility)
Their actions thirty games ago may or may not have bearing on those traits today - someone who was unreliable thirty games ago may have learned from that, or may simply have exposed an underlying unreliability. I'd contend that reliability throughout should suggest reliability today (although not certainly, but very probably); unreliability a fair time ago may or may not imply unreliability today. If someone has played 60+ games with an NMR rate of (say) 30% and surrender rate of 30% in his first thirty; an NMR rate and surrender rate of 0% in his most recent thirty, is he/she a more reliable player today than someone who has played 60+ games with a surrender rate of 0% in his first forty and 10% in his most recent 20; an NMR rate of 0% in his first fifty and 10% in his most recent 20?

The first player fails to qualify for membership. The second makes gold standard. I'd say that the first is a more worthy member.
(NB - as it's set up, someone coiuld qualify for silver and not qualify for bronze: 10 games played, an NMR rate of <5% and one surrender in game number 9)

How do we measure respect or humility?

Experience - number of games played works for that - and only that, The 5/10/20/50 tiered system works there.
Reliability - the current measurements of NMRs and surrenders is subject to debate. I'd suggest a "Fading Echoes" system for both (most recent games weighted even more heavily) - but how do we measure it?
Respect and humility? If we can't measure them, can we hold them up as a yardstick at all? I'd suggest communication rates are fundamental, but if the stat for number of messages per game is dubious, how can we measure it?

Of the four key criteria, only one is reliably measurable and two are all but impossible to measure - so tiering players based on that is surely suspect? If we do, should we have two separate qualities measured - one for raw experience, one for perceived reliability (eg A-D for experience; 1-3 on reliability)
(In parachuting, the FAI licence is based partly on experience: an "A-licence" parachutist is rather inexperienced; a "D-licence" is the most experienced ... but it doesn't imply skill at any particular discipline like Freeflying, Skysurfing, Canopy Formations or Wingsuits)

Then again, if we're getting this complicated, do we need it at all? My gut instinct is: everyone's a probationary member until they've played x number of Classicist games - then they're full members. If we need tiers, base it simply on experience - experience levels will inevitably vary in the Classicists; reliability (from joining) should not. It should be acceptable or unacceptable. As should humility and respect. My take is therefore:

If people have surrender levels and NMR levels below a certain threshold in their most recent x games (measurement of this may be difficult), they are in as a probationary member of whatever tier their experience represents (Bronze, silver, gold, platinum). After however-many games as a Classicist without any supported issues of NMRs, surrenders or inappropriate language, they graduate to full member. A Full member has two strikes; a probationary member one strike.
http://xkcd.com/552/

Silver member of the Classicists
AndyCooke
 
Posts: 491
Joined: 24 Dec 2008, 22:00
Location: Oxfordshire
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Admin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests