Post by Lord Hastings on Sept 8, 2014 22:31:22 GMT -5
At Sin City, we will be experimenting with a different voting system.
Instead of the system we have traditionally used of tier voting or voting for a single winner, you will instead give all RPs posted for Sin City a rating on a scale of 10. The initial motivation for this was for the Roulette tournament (as it will even the playing field for secondary or tertiary characters in the tournament, as they can still be successful should there be a strong RP written for them), but I have decided to extend it to the entire event.
If this system is successful, it may be used in the future as well.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come off whiny. In order to keep the conversation mature, let me rephrase, I'm pretty uncomfortable that we've, had three unvoted world championship matches in which it for changed hands. It's starting to feel like the fate of that belt is more for storylines now, and less a reward decided by the Fed as a whole
I disagree, I am imagining, as this is how I saw the 'Vote out of 10' system working, that the average votes were used to decide whether Eden's 'Cash In' would be successful, I can't say for sure as the votes for the High Rollers don't seem to have been included. But if this is how this has been decided then the entire fed has had their say in the fairest way possible (just the fed didn't know this was a possibility). Everyone got votes out of Ten, and everyone got an average score, which can be thrown against anyone else's.
It's a big reason I'd like to see the out of ten system stay on as I believe it gives us the ability to be more spontaneous at PPV's without it being a series of 'Paper' Champions (And in fairness we've only ever had one, and that was Cypress at Horizons, Donny won the Infinity vote, and I didn't hear anyone complaining then).
I had no idea this was coming, so it was a shock.
Like I say I am assuming that the averages gave Eden the win, if not...well ignore all I've just said.
The claim that we have had three unvoted championship title changes is not true. There has been one, last year at Horizons. At Infinity events transpired from an in-character perspective that was a "screwjob ending" however at the end of the night the World Title was in the possession of the person that won the World Title vote. Everyone voted on last night's title change. Don't believe me? Just ask any of the High Rollers, and they can affirm that they received the following message over the weekend:
Now that you have cast your ballot, there is a final decision for you to make, which must be made within 24 hours of this message arriving in your inbox.
If your character wins the High Roller match, when will you take your title match? There are two options:
Option 1 - Receive the title match next month at Battleground, against whomever the champion is at that time.
Option 2 - Receive the title match at Sin City itself, in which case the match will take place immediately following the main event, against whomever the winner of the "I Quit" Match is. If you elect to take this option, the winner will be determined by who won their respective first match (High Roller or I Quit) by a wider margin.
Good luck!
Now I realize in my haste to post last night I left the rating results off the High Roller match, and I don't have them with me at the moment, but the margin by which Eden won over her closest runner-up (Deimos) was greater by the margin by which Hastings beat Jet. Not everybody elected to take the title shot had they won, but Eden did, and she went on to win. There were alternate versions in place of the subsequent Eden heel turn in the event that there was a different High Roller winner or Eden did not win the title, and both the "I Quit" match, the High Roller cash-in, and the Eden heel turn were individual elements, all given their own consideration, that late last night I was able to weave together in a way that I think played out very nicely.
The new RP Rating system made both the Roulette tournament and the High Roller possible, neither of these events would have been possible under the original system. Can it be improved? Absolutely, and I hope that we do improve it and look forward to feedback or suggestions to that end. But for a first run, I think it was a success.
I feel that is a misappropriation of votes. Those of us not in the high rollers match were not given the option to know we could possibly be voting on an impromptu match. As I told brit last night, I don't like the idea that anyone could become champion based on a surprise sequence of events and proper manipulation of the votes. If you are competing for a championship, especially that one, I feel the scale you are judged on should be harsher. A 10 for a grudge match is not the same as a 10 in a world title match.
With the new system, now I have to consider purses and contracts, and will give a lower score because 'well that was awesome, but on the off chance this person cashes in, I don't think it was world title winning awesome... " and risk that person losing their own match as a result. And then there are the sometimes gut wrenching stipulations to consider. Imagine two people agonizing over the stip, pulling it off, and neither of them walking out the champ. That's ludicrous.
I'm sticking to my guns. I'm fully against anyone holding a title without the voters knowing they are voting for it, and I'm fully against this new voting system. One of the things that I really liked here was the power given to the roleplayers to choose their champions, and I feel that has been compromised.
I think B makes some valid points that are worth consideration. Like I've said, at no point in this process has this new system been stamped as "THE WAY IT WILL BE" and that is the end. Think of it as a "living document" that we are creating together. This has been and continues to be an organic process.
Rob asked me this morning why it wasn't so simple as comparing the two RP scores to each other, in this situation, comparing the Eden score to the Hastings score. Bs point about a 10 for a grudge match being different than a 10 in a world title match is exactly the reason. Instead, what was compared was not pure scores, but rather margin of victory. I feel this eliminates the issue of scale that B is referring to. If a cash-in were to occur, the person who had an easier path hypothetically should have an advantage, shouldn't they? I think that is reasonable.
With the new system, now I have to consider purses and contracts, and will give a lower score because 'well that was awesome, but on the off chance this person cashes in, I don't think it was world title winning awesome... " and risk that person losing their own match as a result.
Again, I think using margin of victory as opposed to pure scores addresses this. There is no risk of a person "losing their own match as a result" because you're still voting on all elements of that match. Your votes should still reflect who you feel won. If I am someone not understanding what you mean, please explain further, but I'm not seeing the flaw here.
There is no question that the purse system has been underutilized, which is a big part of where the High Roller concept came from to begin with. To assume that cash-ins will now happen all the time seems like an overreaction. Our next step in this regard I think would be to refine how the cash-in process will work. Perhaps a "surprise" cash-in should cost more than a scheduled one. I think it goes without saying that anybody "victimized" by a surprise cash-in would be entitled to a straight rematch that will again be voted on if they want one, and I think that is fair.
This warrants further discussion, and I don't think that is a bad thing. Again, I view this as an organic process that we are developing as we move forward. I think perhaps we should give that its own space, and let this thread go back to its intended focus on the event itself (in which many more things beyond a cash-in occurred).
Hanson: "May Roberts' soul go to a better place, free of chunky Asians, who do flips."
Post by T-Robosaurus Rex on Sept 30, 2014 12:19:39 GMT -5
OK some very valid points have been made so I want to try and give my view on them.
Firstly, I think this idea of adapting a score based on peoples purses and contracts is balls. I would vote based on the RP in front of me, and the RP-er. In some respects a weaker RP-er might get a higher score than their stronger opponent because I may rank on individual ability, for instance it's not difficult for Wayne to bust out a great RP, but if JK returned and did something Half Waynes level I might appreciate the effort and score him higher, even if the post isn't quite as good.
But in general, the vote out of ten should be based on work and RP-er, not the match they are in and what MIGHT happen, that’s balls. I gave Eden my highest score this week because I thought she did the best work out of everyone in the fed, not just her field, so her cashing in and winning doesn't feel like a misappropriation of my vote at all
I also think doing this puts more onus on the Champion to try and be the best they can be each and every week. I've always felt that the Title Holder should be the standard bearer for the fed and be producing consistently the best work, that doesn't always happen (especially if they have a weak opponent etc), but with the chance to get usurped by a BETTER RP-er hanging over them it would make that position mean even more than just a popularity contest, and add some responsibility to the position.
In regards to using 'margin of victory' to decide any cash ins, I understand where Steve is coming from, but that system kinda falls down when I wait for a month where I am facing JK in a pointless match, (or someone who no shows), because I know my margin is going to wider than that of the Main Event. That's why I believe it should be average vs average, but that's when I think people will rank out of ten on a fairly consistent basis, B does suggest people may be more Machiavellian about it. I also think doing it by average should, if voted consistently, lead to the better RP-er winning, rather than the person who happened to beat their arguably weaker opponent by a larger margin.
Also by average it would mean the Championship contenders should be trying to write the best RP in the fed, which is the way it should be. The Champion ALWAYS has to be on their game.
I personally believe the old voting process was unfit for purpose, and left a lot to be desired, especially in multi-person matches where the margin of difference between someone's top 3 picks might be really close, but the old system could not reflect that. Now I can vote 8.9, 8.85 and 8.8 for Chad, Wayne and B at BG if I want (for example).
Cash in's clearly need to be looked at, and I suggested to Steve a few weeks back that if it went the way of the new votes any impromptu cash ins should be highly priced (Maybe triple the usual cash in) to deter it from being used. Also maybe we give the competitors in the Title Match a heads up that 'someone' is coming for their title, so they get the chance to raise their game and not be utterly blind sided. (I can see the hilarity when someone writes the equivalent to War and Peace and it turns out Sean Jensen is the one to cash in and then not show).
The main problem I think B has is these impromtu cash ins, which I think is a very fair point, but I also hope they wouldn't become a regular occurrence, and we as a group could obviously agree on a bunch of rules to ensure that. I agree with Steve that anyone who is victim should, if they so wish, be granted an immediate rematch on the next Synergy and it be voted on (with no option for another cash in from elsewhere).
I honestly hope we can continue with this voting system in some form, and it does need discussion, I also hope any reticence over just one part of it (The potential of 'misappropriated votes' as B put) won't mean people just dismiss it all out.
Another point that hasn't been mentioned is how we can actually have more flexibility with shows. Some shows, in the past have been weakened by no-shows, this systems means, if need be, we could shift the card somewhat (especially if using averages) to ensure every match is competitive and means something, the current system leaves no room for flexibility.
Anyway, ramble over I'm sure I'll have more thoughts but I'll leave it there for now.
Hanson: "May Roberts' soul go to a better place, free of chunky Asians, who do flips."
Another thing, and I'm speaking from my perspective as the holder of the (arguably) second most prestigious championship in the fed, is the "top of the game" remark. I agree that a champion has responsibility to perform at a high level. That's why I've taken it upon myself to maintain a standard despite weak opposition. I've held back, and avoided my old strategy of using a bazooka to kill an ant so to speak, but I've resisted the urge to "mail it in" when booked against an opponent I can easily defeat. Champions should be the best, I agree, that is a nobile notion. On the other hand, is there not a reciprocating responsibility to the Championship itself? The idea that a weaker RPer going above their average and posting one good RP having more punch than an average RP posted by someone who consistently produces quality work, is frankly insulting. It reeks of communism, actually.
Where is my motivation, then, to keep consistently putting up great work week after week after month? What I'm saying is that the opportunity for someone to swoop in at any time unannounced and cash in their purse makes the championship devalued. Essentially everyone has their own Money in the Bank briefcase, and everything becomes anarchy.
That being said, the "champion's rematch clause" is a fair compromise and has served actual real-world pro wrestling well in situations where a challenger "gets lucky" and ekes out a win.
"A man who is 'sound of mind' is one who keeps the inner madman under lock and key." - Paul Valéry
Post by T-Robosaurus Rex on Sept 30, 2014 14:07:43 GMT -5
I think you hit on what could be a concern, but with this current roster I don't think it would be a big one, and that is personal tastes in voting.
I mentioned I might vote a JK post higher than a better post, but that's down to my personal view of how things can work, and there is little we can do to ensure people don't try and screw people by voting them at 0.5 just for kicks. As I say with this roster I'd like to think that wouldn't happen.
But with respects to the exact scenario of a weaker RP-er beating a stronger RP-er for a title, I think that happens sometimes anyway when people decide it's time for a change. Taking you as an example, one day the fed will decide it's time for you to drop that so you can go for the World Title, you may drop to a weaker opponent, it's exactly what happens in the real world, but it won't be because you were worst than them. Also, in this place I think the vast majority of the roster are so close talent wise that such scenario's are unlikely to rear their head that often.
In respect of my JK/V scenario it's doubtful I would make such a vote if I felt the champion had handled themselves as you have. In my scenario the Champion is meant to have not pushed themselves to a high limit, and THEN I would vote a possibly weaker opponent on because they had made the bigger effort.
Just wanted to explain, in a bit more depth what I mean, it needed expanding and hope that explains a bit better how I would use my votes.
Hanson: "May Roberts' soul go to a better place, free of chunky Asians, who do flips."
Post by Jet Somers on Sept 30, 2014 14:30:15 GMT -5
Rob and Wayne have pretty much covered 99% of my concerns, but let me expand a couple of things:
-This 'margin' clause. First, let me iterate that I don't expect these sorts of things to just happen all the time, I'm simply pointing out that the potential for them to happen is there. Let me give the hypothetical example I gave Brit last night. Let's say Gian, over his long tenure manages to nickel and dime his way to a respectable purse. He challenges Eden to a 'who is blacker' match and purchases it. Brit and I both give an amazing effort, but the overwhelming support for Gian's stereotypical ghetto makes it a 10-5 win. Eden also has a world title match that night with Hastings, and the score is 8-7 in favor of Edie. By the margin clause, Gian could cash in for a surprise world title match at the end of the night, and walk away the champion. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit.
-That brings to mind the stipulations. I'm reminded of the agonizing effort Brit and I put forth for the Valhalla Burial Match. We were blindsided, but we both fucking brought it hard, and I think we put out some of our best work ever. Imagine if someone had cashed in that night and won based on the current voting system. I'd be fucking PISSED.
-There is a fine line between a 'swerve' and a 'screwjob.' Efeds can have swerves, should have them in fact, to keep things interesting. They should NOT have screwjobs. That's the difference between efeds and real wrestling for me. This system gives the potential for screwjobs. When someone has to defend their championship, things which are definitely not easy to earn in an efed with this caliber of roleplayers, they should get the chance to defend it on the roleplay board. There was a spot of drama a few years back (which was quashed, fairly, with talking it out and some respectable private conversations) during the Pierce vs Somers feud for the World Title. Pierce purchased Synergies, gave himself basically a little vacation, and only posted live TPTs during the shows. Jet roleplayed every week at Pierce's whim, did segments, and then both of us churned out a hefty rp for the PPV. Pierce won, and there were a few who didn't think it was fair because there is a belief that the vote for the PPV should be judged on that handler's work during the entire cycle, and not just the week of the PPV. Cashing in at the PPV doesn't give the champion a chance to defend on the rp board, where the championships should be decided, and it doesn't take into account the work of the handlers during the entire month. It's one of the reasons I prefer cycles in which the World champion has at least some knowledge about what's coming at the PPV so they can spend the month putting out the kind of work they feel will defend the championship against a certain kind of threat. Like Wayne said, you rp differently based on who your opponent might be. When you go the whole month without knowing you're about to defend against someone awesome, like Brit, you kinda get shafted. Especially if SHE knows there's a chance she might be challenging.
-Finally, there's what I see as the asterisk champions. All respect to Brit, Steve, and Danny, and their abilities, but when I look at the list of champions, I can't help but imagine an asterisk by their names, and a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying 'not judged on same criteria' You can say Eden put out the best rp of the week last week, but neither Jet nor Donovan were given the chance to represent themselves against her on the roleplay board, and had they, I'm sure the roleplays would have been different.
World (4) CH (1) Chaos (2) CoOp (7) GIW Hardcore Champion PPW Paramount Champion Battleground 2011 Outlast 2014 IYH House Finalist 2015 MVP 2011 Best Collaboration 2012-13
Post by T-Robosaurus Rex on Sept 30, 2014 14:53:43 GMT -5
On one note I'm not sure I understand why Steve would have an asterix? At Infinity he won the vote, we just wrote the match to have Cypress retain then get screwed.
Also, Eden didn't RP against Donny and Jet this week, as much as they didn't against her, so I don't see that as a huge disadvantage. And I do believe the Championship contenders should try to put out the best RP's in the fed, so in my mind at least they should almost be RP-ing, quality wise, against everyone anyway.
Hopefully some of the ideas that have been thrown about (such as instant rematches to redress imbalance and giving championship contenders a nod that someone is after them to give them a chance to up their game if they were planning on giving lest than their A-Game) you can see no-one would allow the system to be abused.
There will always be votes that don't make sense to some perspectives, I know I've felt that way a few times and not all of them have been ancient history, but I do think this is a move in the right direction. We might need to refine things, and then spell out exactly how things will work, but I hope the positives outweigh any potential negatives.
Hanson: "May Roberts' soul go to a better place, free of chunky Asians, who do flips."
On one note I'm not sure I understand why Steve would have an asterix? At Infinity he won the vote, we just wrote the match to have Cypress retain then get screwed.
Steve will remember that I came to him about that very win, and it took a hefty amount of explaining to convince me that it was all well and proper. I'm not going back on agreeing now, I just feel that it causes a bit of discomfort when the process to get those votes to that win is extremely convoluted and requires an explanation at all. In all honesty, you could say Cypress gets a asterisk for Horizons, one for the defense at Infinity, and Eden gets one for Sin City. There were mutterings and some questions asked about the Infinity result, and I stood up and said, Steve's always been a straight shooter with me, so I'll talk to him, and if his explanation satisfies, I'll back him. It did, but again, the fact that I had to go to him is somewhat unsettling.
Also, Eden didn't RP against Donny and Jet this week, as much as they didn't against her, so I don't see that as a huge disadvantage. And I do believe the Championship contenders should try to put out the best RP's in the fed, so in my mind at least they should almost be RP-ing, quality wise, against everyone anyway.
I have to just straight up disagree with that viewpoint. One of the hardest matches I've had here was defending against Zane Scott. It was fucking exhausting, and I still am not sure how I pulled it off. I can't imagine having to defend against Zane Scott, and also everyone else just in case. Defending a championship against an established opponent should require a certain amount of focus on that opponent. I respect the shit out of Bryan, but I'll be honest and say I haven't ranked him as highly lately because in his rps he hasn't really focused on his opponents as much as he used to. Is it a bad story? No. I enjoy his work, but if he were a champion, I'd have given him even lower scores. I get the target on your back deal, but having to rp against everyone all the time, because sometimes people cash in once in a blue moon and you need to be ready for it? That's asking a bit much out of this 'hobby.'
Hopefully some of the ideas that have been thrown about (such as instant rematches to redress imbalance and giving championship contenders a nod that someone is after them to give them a chance to up their game if they were planning on giving lest than their A-Game) you can see no-one would allow the system to be abused.
I've always hated the rematch clause. It potentially sets up an endless back and forth where the title changes hands every month, and two people monopolize it. Boring. Moving on.
There will always be votes that don't make sense to some perspectives, I know I've felt that way a few times and not all of them have been ancient history, but I do think this is a move in the right direction. We might need to refine things, and then spell out exactly how things will work, but I hope the positives outweigh any potential negatives.
A-FUCKING-MEN
World (4) CH (1) Chaos (2) CoOp (7) GIW Hardcore Champion PPW Paramount Champion Battleground 2011 Outlast 2014 IYH House Finalist 2015 MVP 2011 Best Collaboration 2012-13
Post by Jet Somers on Sept 30, 2014 15:10:12 GMT -5
In all seriousness guys, I've tried to keep most of my dissension when it arises to the private discussions, but this needs to be sussed out. The old system had huge flaws, we all know about voting loyally instead of fairly, but this system has a long way to go before I'll see the quality of it. There are many more flaws to it (I give one guy 9.99 and the other 9.98... my vote essentially didn't count), but there are plusses also (it practically eliminates the coin flip situation.)
I will say this, you guys have always tried to work in the fairest way possible, and I appreciate that. I just don't think you quite understand how unfair this system feels.
World (4) CH (1) Chaos (2) CoOp (7) GIW Hardcore Champion PPW Paramount Champion Battleground 2011 Outlast 2014 IYH House Finalist 2015 MVP 2011 Best Collaboration 2012-13
Post by T-Robosaurus Rex on Sept 30, 2014 15:36:24 GMT -5
The rematch clause was specifically aimed at if their was a cash in, and as Wayne said I think it would be a fair compromise. (Remember I got rid of the rematch clause for exactly the reasons you stated)
We will clearly disagree on the RP against the whole fed. But I would like to say I'm not being literal, as in include them all, but just make sure you bring your A-Game all the time. If we're going to take personal experience, way back when I could challenge at the top and was GIW Global Champion I always aimed to prove, in every RP, that I was the best choice to lead the company as champion, I didn't name check everyone, but at the same time as Champion I recognised IC and OOC the need to be better than the rest. I think for instance, say V cashes in on Jet and he busts his ass cause his opponent is Chad, but because your opponent is (for some inexplicable reason) Forewell, who I've been misfiring with, you only give 60% effort and then Wayne wins. I'm sorry but you'd deserve to lose, thats not the behaviour of the guy holding this games biggest reward, they should never rest on their laurels.
It works both ways I think, it does as you've pointed out have the potential in some circumstances to 'screw' someone, but I truly only believe that would occur if that person screwed themselves.
Your right though, it does mean re-examining stips, because I will attest it's going to be hard to beat someone without a word limit vs someone with one, but I don't think it's impossible. For instance I do think Edie's post was the best this week (And her work over the month did factor into my vote also, it always does), I thought your idea showed great creativity, I just wasn't sold on the final message, thought that could have been more impactful. But regardless of my reasoning, the stips might need looking at. Or people might choose with more care? I dunno.
In regards to the 9.98/9.99 situation, I think we'd have to just agree to cap it at one decimal place for a start. But on the other hand I feel the other way, I don't mind if some people are even voting two people at 8 a piece, people are allowed to fence sit, but I think I can guarantee the entire fed would not all sit on the fence. It would probably make draws a thing of the past more than increase them. And in regards to things like Outlast, Battleground or one of the numerous other events we have with numerous competitors going against one another, I think it's a liberating idea because sometimes the top 3 are so close it's not always reflected in the split.
You can also track your own progress a little better, those of us trying to improve after a long time out, or trying to step our game up have a much better reflection than losing 7-2 or something, that score does not always reflect how close things are (A sentiment offered often in PPV feedz)
I don't think their are more negatives than positives, I think the major ones revolve around something that we can control (cash ins) and admittedly needs work. Most shows it will work not unlike it does anyway, one person will get a higher vote than their opponent/s.
As for keeping discussions private, I don't think this should be a private discussion. it's about our own form of democracy, doing it secretively would be retarded. I was disappointed their was less said about it when it was first announced. As far as I'm concerned keep saying what you're thinking, and as long as your happy with me continuing to give you my perspective I will.
If this system feels unfair that's something I think we need to work on, but I do think it's far better than the previous alternative. As someone who ran this place for a long time with that system, and the strife it caused, I'm annoyed this wasn't thought of earlier.
Post by Jet Somers on Sept 30, 2014 15:48:34 GMT -5
Maybe the issue here is the constant need to 'swerve' everyone? I'm guilty of it as well, that Mickey/Jet/Jez swerve last year was extremely convoluted. It's when the swerves affect the outcomes of titles (or are written as if they did) that people begin to shift uncomfortable in their computer chairs.
I think if the rematch clause was ONLY enacted for cash in wins I could live with it.
Last Edit: Sept 30, 2014 15:48:47 GMT -5 by Jet Somers
World (4) CH (1) Chaos (2) CoOp (7) GIW Hardcore Champion PPW Paramount Champion Battleground 2011 Outlast 2014 IYH House Finalist 2015 MVP 2011 Best Collaboration 2012-13
I think if the rematch clause was ONLY enacted for cash in wins I could live with it.
I'm completely good with this. While I'm sure it's happened here and there with other titles, the ONLY time there has ever been a direct rematch for the World Title was this month, and that fact was part of the narrative story. While I don't think it's ever been actually addressed, not doing rematches has generally been the policy.