|
|
Post by Rocky on Apr 10, 2008 14:12:34 GMT -5
I'd really like everyone to vote on this so that we can get a concrete total for hot seats/interviews from now on. I don't think it should be 50/50 but if the league wants it like that then it should be like that. If other, post it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Apr 10, 2008 14:16:37 GMT -5
Try doing an article, coming up with ten good questions and organizing the article afterwards. If you do a fact or fiction, you have to copy and paste the guy's anwers to put them together, bold names and questions, on top of putting together 10 questions. It should be left to the grader's discretion, but having done my fact or fiction, I'd say it was EASILY more work than the article I wrote about my team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Apr 10, 2008 14:27:22 GMT -5
I'm not going to let it be my discretion, it's just not worth the inevitable complaining that will come from that. That's why I want there to be a concrete figure for all of these types of things. If you guys want them to be 50/50 (to promote writing them, reward them, etc) then vote 50/50, it doesn't matter to me, but I don't really have any interest in doing the job if I'm going to have to deal with people having the opportunity to argue for or against a point total on their hot seat/interview.
If someone has a good idea for a league vote (maybe a panel?) on each of them, then that could potentially work. Not one person though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Apr 10, 2008 14:29:39 GMT -5
Look, reducing it to 25 is nonsense. You tell a guy he has to put out 4 articles to earn an RC? Seriously? He needs to compile 40 questions for 4 different guys to earn an RC? That won't last. Nobody will do them.
Interview articles are by far the best type of articles, and offering a guy 1/4 an RC to do them isn't even kind of enticing. Keep it at 50.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Apr 10, 2008 14:36:02 GMT -5
Look, it's not nonsense, and I didn't make a change. I put it to a vote. You're going to be over the top because you just did one and it was time consuming - fine. There is also a ridiculous amount of them where the interviewer hardly did a thing, and has no business getting 50 points, or the equivalent of an actual article. That's the point. Too often, to me, people get article-points for doing borderline nothing, and I'm sure it frustrates people. You don't think James has been frustrated by some of his articles getting 50, while Outlawz (no offense to him, and I love the hot seats) also get 50 just for asking questions? There is no right answer, which is the point of the vote. I want it to be concrete, because I'm flat-out not dealing with complaints over how much each article should get. If that's going to happen, then I won't do the job. It's not a big deal, it's not as if someone else couldn't do it, but I'm just saying that I'm not going to deal with it. If the league votes for 50/50, then it'll absolutely stay there. It is something to put to vote. Look at what happened the last time I brought this up; it was an overwhelming "victory" for reducing the amount of points given to the interviewer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Apr 10, 2008 14:36:42 GMT -5
The Habes is an arrogant fuck!
|
|
Outlawz
All-League
New York Knicks
Going back to basics
Posts: 7,853
|
Post by Outlawz on Apr 10, 2008 14:39:54 GMT -5
Look, reducing it to 25 is nonsense. You tell a guy he has to put out 4 articles to earn an RC? Seriously? He needs to compile 40 questions for 4 different guys to earn an RC? That won't last. Nobody will do them. Interview articles are by far the best type of articles, and offering a guy 1/4 an RC to do them isn't even kind of enticing. Keep it at 50. Completely agree. Mark i think your overcomplicating it by giving articles a grade. Regardless people are taking time to write an article that like Habes said are by far the most enjoyable to read. It'll promote more bullshit articles and less articles that guys really like to read. It's about the quality of the read not the time spent. That's why personally i dont care to even write a hot seat anymore. Rather write an article about something that most people wont read but at least i'll get 50. |
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Apr 10, 2008 14:40:12 GMT -5
Again, I have no problem with it being 50/50. It doesn't matter to me. I just want it to be a concrete figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by duceisinmyheart on Apr 10, 2008 14:41:23 GMT -5
worst thread ever
|
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Apr 10, 2008 14:46:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by duceisinmyheart on Apr 10, 2008 14:47:19 GMT -5
how about a free RC for everyone to stfu
|
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Apr 10, 2008 14:59:39 GMT -5
It's bullshit. Anyone who does these knows they deserve 50. Why are you trying to take away RCs? Seriously, we give them out for so many things less valuable to the league than articles. The FoF articles and Hot Seat interviews are the only articles that draw attention. Give them 50 for that alone. This is just bad for activity and will lead to fewer articles. Doesn't make an ounce of sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Apr 10, 2008 15:02:28 GMT -5
It doesn't make an ounce of sense and yet, last time I brought it up, 10 of 16 said that they'd like to see a reduction in the amount of points given to the interviewer. Weird. I know, I know, you just did one so this is an issue. Again, I don't care about what the total is, I just want it to be a concrete total. In my response to Spence over PM I said that I'd like it at 25 but it doesn't matter to me, I'll do what the league wants. Hence the vote. I don't care what the total is, I just don't want complaints. It's a big enough pain in the ass to do the job in the first place. There needs to be a set total.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Apr 10, 2008 15:06:02 GMT -5
This poll needs to go to 20-25+ for anything to become official. It's a league matter, the league should vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Apr 10, 2008 15:06:23 GMT -5
It's not a matter of if I just did one. It's not personal to me. Any guy who did one would say they did a lot of work, because even if you don't think they do, they do.
It's a terrible idea to reduce them, imo, because all it does is discourage guys from putting out the most popular articles we have.
|
|
|
|
Post by duceisinmyheart on Apr 10, 2008 15:07:33 GMT -5
waa
|
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix Phil on Apr 10, 2008 15:10:48 GMT -5
In the current system, the interviewer can send out the same set of questions to 4 different GM, split the responses into 4 different articles, and get 2 RC's. If there was some way to regulate that, I'd have no problem with 50 points.
|
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Apr 10, 2008 15:11:08 GMT -5
This poll needs to go to 20-25+ for anything to become official. It's a league matter, the league should vote. It's not a league matter. It never was. It's something you felt should be reduced once you took over duties. Mark, just do a FoF. Think of ten questions, send them out to three or four guys, and put the article together when the responses are in. It's not fair for guys who don't do the articles to look at the final product and decide someone else's activity isn't worthwhile. 25 points towards an RC requires three more articles. That was never the case, because Spence and/or Reilly made rules rewarding guys for doing an article. You took over and took objection. Doesn't mean it's a league matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Apr 10, 2008 15:12:40 GMT -5
Don't break up!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Apr 10, 2008 15:24:25 GMT -5
This poll needs to go to 20-25+ for anything to become official. It's a league matter, the league should vote. It's not a league matter. It never was. It's something you felt should be reduced once you took over duties. Mark, just do a FoF. Think of ten questions, send them out to three or four guys, and put the article together when the responses are in. It's not fair for guys who don't do the articles to look at the final product and decide someone else's activity isn't worthwhile. 25 points towards an RC requires three more articles. That was never the case, because Spence and/or Reilly made rules rewarding guys for doing an article. You took over and took objection. Doesn't mean it's a league matter. Where are you getting this ten question to three or four guys bullshit from? Congrats, you did that one. They pretty much never are like that. That is an exception, not the norm. I think that is pretty clear, and it's silly to me that you keep referencing that. I posted a poll a month ago where the majority wanted it reduced. Spence said to me in a PM no more than an hour ago that it'd be up to me/the league. So, I made it a league vote. I had the option to not make it a league vote, and I did anyway. If you want to do the job, do the job. It doesn't matter to me. I'm not enforcing anything off of my own opinion; we're voting. To me, 7+ questions and then posting the answers from someone is a ten minute job. In your case, you spent more time. Good. Some articles take two hours, some take ten minutes. That's the variation that happens when the only requirement to getting 50 points is to post an article, regardless of its quality. I have sympathy for someone like James who spends an hour(s) on an article and gets rewarded with 50 points, and then another person who asks 7+ questions to one person and gets the same reward. Your article was not the norm, so stop referencing it as such. If it was the norm, this wouldn't even be an issue. You went above and beyond in the same way that James goes above and beyond. James would still get the same 50 point total, and you would get the same point total (in your "category"). FoF and Hot Seats promote activity, but it isn't exactly monumental. They're awesome, so I completely understand wanting to promote them. But at the same time, I'd rather reward time as opposed to the activity that an article produces. Articles are written for RCs, and RCs are for individuals. I don't like the idea that someone can spend substantially less time on something and still get the same numerical reward as James. I don't think it is right. BBS is going to be just as active no matter what. This is my opinion on it. I actually might not believe what I'm saying as strongly as it is coming off, it's just the way responses have been directed towards me that have caused me to respond in this manner. My opinion is that it should be 25. I don't really care if it is. I see the reasoning for 50, no doubt. If it is kept at 50, then that is the point total I'm giving to it. It's really not something that bothers me, but it is something worth putting to a vote because the LAST time it was put to a vote, people voted to change the total. This is exactly why I want/need everything to have a set total, regardless of what it is. You told me to use my discretion in your first post... no. This is the stuff that happens. People feel much more strongly on something when they can relate it to their own work, and I'm not going to deal with it. |
|
|
|
Post by DB on Apr 10, 2008 16:41:38 GMT -5
it is definitely not the same work for both sides. The person answering the questions should always be doing the majority of the work. But for those people who go above and beyond in posting and creating the article, they always should be given 50 as well. It does suck that some people will take 10 minutes to make one while others 2 hours, but there really is nothing you can do about it. I say leave it as is, 50/50 for both parties. Its fair, promotes activity, its in favor for everyone really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ebener 12 on Apr 10, 2008 16:44:14 GMT -5
I think answering the questions involves a lot more work so I would say 25 for the questions, 50 for the answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Apr 10, 2008 16:51:31 GMT -5
It's not a league matter. It never was. It's something you felt should be reduced once you took over duties. Mark, just do a FoF. Think of ten questions, send them out to three or four guys, and put the article together when the responses are in. It's not fair for guys who don't do the articles to look at the final product and decide someone else's activity isn't worthwhile. 25 points towards an RC requires three more articles. That was never the case, because Spence and/or Reilly made rules rewarding guys for doing an article. You took over and took objection. Doesn't mean it's a league matter. Where are you getting this ten question to three or four guys bullshit from? Congrats, you did that one. They pretty much never are like that. That is an exception, not the norm. I think that is pretty clear, and it's silly to me that you keep referencing that. I posted a poll a month ago where the majority wanted it reduced. Spence said to me in a PM no more than an hour ago that it'd be up to me/the league. So, I made it a league vote. I had the option to not make it a league vote, and I did anyway. If you want to do the job, do the job. It doesn't matter to me. I'm not enforcing anything off of my own opinion; we're voting. To me, 7+ questions and then posting the answers from someone is a ten minute job. In your case, you spent more time. Good. Some articles take two hours, some take ten minutes. That's the variation that happens when the only requirement to getting 50 points is to post an article, regardless of its quality. I have sympathy for someone like James who spends an hour(s) on an article and gets rewarded with 50 points, and then another person who asks 7+ questions to one person and gets the same reward. Your article was not the norm, so stop referencing it as such. If it was the norm, this wouldn't even be an issue. You went above and beyond in the same way that James goes above and beyond. James would still get the same 50 point total, and you would get the same point total (in your "category"). FoF and Hot Seats promote activity, but it isn't exactly monumental. They're awesome, so I completely understand wanting to promote them. But at the same time, I'd rather reward time as opposed to the activity that an article produces. Articles are written for RCs, and RCs are for individuals. I don't like the idea that someone can spend substantially less time on something and still get the same numerical reward as James. I don't think it is right. BBS is going to be just as active no matter what. This is my opinion on it. I actually might not believe what I'm saying as strongly as it is coming off, it's just the way responses have been directed towards me that have caused me to respond in this manner. My opinion is that it should be 25. I don't really care if it is. I see the reasoning for 50, no doubt. If it is kept at 50, then that is the point total I'm giving to it. It's really not something that bothers me, but it is something worth putting to a vote because the LAST time it was put to a vote, people voted to change the total. This is exactly why I want/need everything to have a set total, regardless of what it is. You told me to use my discretion in your first post... no. This is the stuff that happens. People feel much more strongly on something when they can relate it to their own work, and I'm not going to deal with it. Here's why I disagee You refuse to leave it to your discretion, so you want to create a restrictive policy, not a rewarding policy. You're willing to group together a guy who puts together a 10 question article with 3-4 people with a guy who does a lesser job, and give them only 25 points no matter the work. That's unfair. If you're unwilling to go case by case, that's your problem. It doesn't mean all guys should be hurt because you don't want to encounter an argument. If you can acknowledge that one guy who interviews does enough work to earn 50 points, then it's completely unfair to say he won't get 50 points just because some other guys do 25 points-worth. It hurts activity, it doesn't reward it. Either leave it to your discretion or leave it as it is, because it's so unfair to reduce the amount of points just because some guys don't do enough to earn them (in your opinion. In my opinion, any guys willing to think up ten questions about BBS to put out an article should be given 50 points, no doubt), especially when it's clear others do. By that logic, some articles written by one guy suck, and don't deserve as many as articles of better quality, so we'd then reduce all articles to a lowest common denomenator to avoid argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Apr 10, 2008 16:53:42 GMT -5
It's not a league matter. It never was. It's something you felt should be reduced once you took over duties. Mark, just do a FoF. Think of ten questions, send them out to three or four guys, and put the article together when the responses are in. It's not fair for guys who don't do the articles to look at the final product and decide someone else's activity isn't worthwhile. 25 points towards an RC requires three more articles. That was never the case, because Spence and/or Reilly made rules rewarding guys for doing an article. You took over and took objection. Doesn't mean it's a league matter. Where are you getting this ten question to three or four guys bullshit from? Congrats, you did that one. They pretty much never are like that. That is an exception, not the norm. I think that is pretty clear, and it's silly to me that you keep referencing that. I posted a poll a month ago where the majority wanted it reduced. Spence said to me in a PM no more than an hour ago that it'd be up to me/the league. So, I made it a league vote. I had the option to not make it a league vote, and I did anyway. If you want to do the job, do the job. It doesn't matter to me. I'm not enforcing anything off of my own opinion; we're voting. To me, 7+ questions and then posting the answers from someone is a ten minute job. In your case, you spent more time. Good. Some articles take two hours, some take ten minutes. That's the variation that happens when the only requirement to getting 50 points is to post an article, regardless of its quality. I have sympathy for someone like James who spends an hour(s) on an article and gets rewarded with 50 points, and then another person who asks 7+ questions to one person and gets the same reward. Your article was not the norm, so stop referencing it as such. If it was the norm, this wouldn't even be an issue. You went above and beyond in the same way that James goes above and beyond. James would still get the same 50 point total, and you would get the same point total (in your "category"). FoF and Hot Seats promote activity, but it isn't exactly monumental. They're awesome, so I completely understand wanting to promote them. But at the same time, I'd rather reward time as opposed to the activity that an article produces. Articles are written for RCs, and RCs are for individuals. I don't like the idea that someone can spend substantially less time on something and still get the same numerical reward as James. I don't think it is right. BBS is going to be just as active no matter what.This is my opinion on it. I actually might not believe what I'm saying as strongly as it is coming off, it's just the way responses have been directed towards me that have caused me to respond in this manner. My opinion is that it should be 25. I don't really care if it is. I see the reasoning for 50, no doubt. If it is kept at 50, then that is the point total I'm giving to it. It's really not something that bothers me, but it is something worth putting to a vote because the LAST time it was put to a vote, people voted to change the total. This is exactly why I want/need everything to have a set total, regardless of what it is. You told me to use my discretion in your first post... no. This is the stuff that happens. People feel much more strongly on something when they can relate it to their own work, and I'm not going to deal with it. The bolded part is the reason why it's not a league matter and is really just something you disagree with and want to change. It's how you feel about the system, and the system works just fine as is, promoting guys to write articles which I find are always the most interesting thing in BBS when they come out. |
|
|
|
Post by Ebener 12 on Apr 10, 2008 16:53:53 GMT -5
I wouldn't have a problem with Mark just deciding on a case-by-case basis. I mean it's different with a big Around The Horn article compared to a Hot Seat.
|
|
