Oko
Joined: Apr 30, 2004
|
 Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 13:24 |
 
|
| PurpleChest wrote: | | Responding positively to the needs of the individual, if they do not contradict the needs of the organisation, and not using them as a barrier to that persons progression or as a means of harassment of that person in order to maximise the performance of every individual and the organisation. |
Sounds nice on paper. Common sense, even. Ask, and you shall receive, within limits. Johnny Mungo gets his free Coca-cola to keep himself hydrated through the day.
Sounds not so nice, when the paper writes on doctor-trainees refusing to bare their forearms for proper cleaning. |
|
|
Eddy
Joined: Aug 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 13:29 |
|
| Oko wrote: | | PurpleChest wrote: | | Responding positively to the needs of the individual, if they do not contradict the needs of the organisation, and not using them as a barrier to that persons progression or as a means of harassment of that person in order to maximise the performance of every individual and the organisation. |
Sounds nice on paper. Common sense, even. Ask, and you shall receive, within limits. Johnny Mungo gets his free Coca-cola to keep himself hydrated through the day.
Sounds not so nice, when the paper writes on doctor-trainees refusing to bare their forearms for proper cleaning. |
Emphasis mine. I believe your example would qualify. |
_________________
'The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.'
Robert R. Coveyou |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 13:45 |
|
| TheCetusProject wrote: | | I also think that those supporting TS boosts for weaker coaches have not experienced how bad it is to play with a 33TS advantage and still get massacred. |
I can't quite follow what you're trying to suggest?
Looking at your link it seems to me, that a weaker coach's team lost and got crippled even though he had an advantage of 33TS (which is more than twice the amount you could possibly get in Black-Box).
To me, that's rather another example of why it makes sense to give weaker coaches at least a bit of an advantage (not 33TS, though!) over a stronger one (even if that still doesn't make it a 50/50-chance-match, but closer, anyhow).
Please elaborate if you interpret this differently  |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 13:55 |
|
Beware!
Everyone puts the guilt on the BR when having uneven games but, think about this:
Let's say, according to BR/BBR you are supposed to play this opponent with -5TS.
However, who says that the system can actually match you with a suitable opponent/team? You may have unluck with your draw.
Question is, do you better feel like not beeing matched or having a strange match up?
Btw, people having more teams should have less chances of getting an unfair game. |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
odi
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 14:39 |
|
It could be me, or it could be the fact that I'm anxious to get to Peikko's B-day party (I think he's hitting his 3rd millenia now), but anyways... How about this:
We just hide the TR and TS from the users, I'm sure the majority of us users wouldnt count them, so all the games would seem even. The scheduler will know the TR and TS, and it's the only thing that needs to know them  |
|
|
TheCetusProject
Joined: May 25, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 15:29 |
|
| treborius wrote: | | TheCetusProject wrote: | | I also think that those supporting TS boosts for weaker coaches have not experienced how bad it is to play with a 33TS advantage and still get massacred. |
I can't quite follow what you're trying to suggest?
Looking at your link it seems to me, that a weaker coach's team lost and got crippled even though he had an advantage of 33TS (which is more than twice the amount you could possibly get in Black-Box).
To me, that's rather another example of why it makes sense to give weaker coaches at least a bit of an advantage (not 33TS, though!) over a stronger one (even if that still doesn't make it a 50/50-chance-match, but closer, anyhow).
Please elaborate if you interpret this differently |
Losing to better people is easy to take. Losing to better people when possessing a massive TS advantage is not very pleasant. I wouldn't want to do it again. If I win, it's just because I had a far better team, if I lose, it's just horrifying. No outcome is satisfactory. |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 15:39 |
|
@Odi:
If I were Christer, I'd seriously think about hiding the TR/TS in [B]... since some can't handle mild deviations from even, I'll just mask it. There! problem solved
@Treborius:
I agree, a slight TS boost to weaker coaches is all that's needed. Not enough to make it 50/50 - that'd be dull. I think the current system is enough to make it interesting.
@sk8bcn:
My thoughts exactly! |
_________________
\x/es
Last edited by westerner on %b %31, %2008 - %16:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 16:10 |
|
| TheCetusProject wrote: | | treborius wrote: | | TheCetusProject wrote: | | I also think that those supporting TS boosts for weaker coaches have not experienced how bad it is to play with a 33TS advantage and still get massacred. |
I can't quite follow what you're trying to suggest?
Looking at your link it seems to me, that a weaker coach's team lost and got crippled even though he had an advantage of 33TS (which is more than twice the amount you could possibly get in Black-Box).
To me, that's rather another example of why it makes sense to give weaker coaches at least a bit of an advantage (not 33TS, though!) over a stronger one (even if that still doesn't make it a 50/50-chance-match, but closer, anyhow).
Please elaborate if you interpret this differently |
Losing to better people is easy to take. Losing to better people when possessing a massive TS advantage is not very pleasant. I wouldn't want to do it again. If I win, it's just because I had a far better team, if I lose, it's just horrifying. No outcome is satisfactory. |
I guess I kind of understand: You lost terribly and that makes you feel very bad 
Actually, I wouldn't wanna see you play that game without a TS-boost over that oppo, cause that might actually really spell d-e-s-a-s-t-e-r. |
|
|
boch
Joined: Feb 15, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 16:32 |
|
| sk8bcn wrote: |
Beware!
Everyone puts the guilt on the BR when having uneven games but, think about this:
Let's say, according to BR/BBR you are supposed to play this opponent with -5TS.
However, who says that the system can actually match you with a suitable opponent/team? You may have unluck with your draw.
|
Apparently i´m not part of everyone - after those 9 matches with very mixed results I doubt if my BR had anything to do with this
What I´m saying is that this was a matchup on the verge of being unplayable. 15 TS is just a lot at that level of team development while a match between a team with 185 TS versus a 200 TS one is less unequal.
Therefor there might be a point in supplementing the hard cap of TS with a percentage cap as well. |
Last edited by boch on %b %31, %2008 - %16:%Dec; edited 1 time in total |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 16:32 |
|
Alternatively it could spell d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r
| Quote: | | There there is a perception that being a 'visible minority' will gain you promotion quicker and you will be more favoured. The reality is actually provably the exact opposite still (sadly). Being black, gay, female, dissabled etc etc will slow and limit your progression in the organisation. Statistics prove it unarguably, really proper statistics like taking X entrants Y years ago and seeing their progress, like dividing the number of senior posts by the percentage of a visible minority after taking length of service into account. |
Maybe gay/black/midgets genuinely have a lower IQ or perhaps they are fundamentally lazy. Hah, so much for your so called statistical "proofs"!
This post may or may not be serious (in fairness its a decent bet that the studies didnt really consider alternative and controversial explanations for their findings, also your use of the term "proof" is somewhat erroneous). |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 16:41 |
|
Please take the political discussion to the Off Topic forum. Thanks. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 16:56 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | Alternatively it could spell d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r |
(give a sod some serious statement and he will hold his tongue, give him an erroneous statement and he will suck on it like silly  ) |
|
|
tuco
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 17:19 |
|
Perhaps the problem arises because it is a black box. We could probably expect a white box to be a little bit smarter and more professional and do a better job. |
_________________
Don't ask Nuffle for better dice, ask him to make you a better player. |
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 21:29 |
|
| Quote: | | Maybe gay/black/midgets genuinely have a lower IQ or perhaps they are fundamentally lazy. |
Having heard the views of many Met recruits in the pubs around Hendon I'd think that you would have to be pretty crazy to want to work with people like that.
Maybe PurpleChest has the perfect recession proof job or maybe it is just perception. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
lemf
Joined: Jul 17, 2005
|
| Posted:
Dec 31, 2008 - 22:03 |
|
Damn I wish I was intelligent!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
| |
Conceding v Goblins/...
Search
