February 19, 20169 yr comment_5727851 So with the system proposed the guy ranked 100 would get zero points? Doesn't seem right. He should get something for even making someone's list.
February 19, 20169 yr Author comment_5727855 So with the system proposed the guy ranked 100 would get zero points? Doesn't seem right. He should get something for even making someone's list. He does, the people who don't make the list all get -1, so getting 0 for 100 is something.
February 19, 20169 yr Author comment_5727859 I don't agree with -1 for not making someone's list. Then everything would have to be shifted up so #100 would get one point.
February 19, 20169 yr comment_5727860 Could you just jig the same system Dylan mentioned up one so that #100 gets 1 point and go from there? And just tweak something when you get to the weighted scores at the other end. EDIT: Yeah, that.
February 20, 20169 yr comment_5727885 I'd prefer that. 1 for 100, 0 for not making someone's list. I'd agree with this as well. The other way it almost seems like the guy is being punished for being #100.
February 20, 20169 yr Author comment_5727889 I'd prefer that. 1 for 100, 0 for not making someone's list. I'd agree with this as well. The other way it almost seems like the guy is being punished for being #100. The other way with 0 for #100 is not a punishment when everybody that isn't on the list gets -1. Obviously if you drop the -1 for people not making a list, then 0 for 100 makes no sense. However the original way is not a punishment.
February 20, 20169 yr comment_5727913 I'd prefer that. 1 for 100, 0 for not making someone's list. I'd agree with this as well. The other way it almost seems like the guy is being punished for being #100. The other way with 0 for #100 is not a punishment when everybody that isn't on the list gets -1. Obviously if you drop the -1 for people not making a list, then 0 for 100 makes no sense. However the original way is not a punishment. It is. I'm not voting for Lucha guys, as you know. I really like Negro Casas, and wouldn't want him actively punished by me not selecting him. If 20 other guys don't vote for Casas, he's on -20 in one system, and 0 in the other. So he's getting punished.
February 20, 20169 yr comment_5727914 They were talking about #100 being a punishment, not being left off.
February 20, 20169 yr comment_5727915 I was under the impression that he was saying every person not on the list would get a -1.
February 20, 20169 yr comment_5727927 The conversation they're having is about the Laprade System Dylan originally described, he's explaining why #100 being 0 isn't a punishment in that system, since under 100 gets minus and thus a score of zero is less like a bad thing and more like breaking even. He's not saying that the minus points aren't a punishment. You're having two different conversations, is what I'm saying.
February 20, 20169 yr comment_5727931 The other thing: If we do -1s, I think we should close off new nominations. I know I'd hate seeing more names nominated because the very act of putting more people up for discussion penalizes those who are already there.
February 20, 20169 yr comment_5727933 From this thread I feel like we're all agreed that we shouldn't use minus points.
February 20, 20169 yr comment_5727959 I'm against the minus points because it'll look dumb when someone appears on a couple of bollots and has a score of -6 or whatever. It's not actually a punishment anymore than 0 is when you increase all the other scores by one, the results would be identical. You could give -50 for not appearing -49 for being 100th and so on that wouldn't be any sort of a punishment for not being top 50
February 20, 20169 yr Author comment_5728021 so are we all good with laparde with no minus and it shifted up so 100 spot gets 1 point?
.thumb.jpg.00c68798e2502c92a7da65280cf7def4.jpg)
Create an account or sign in to comment