Team England Charter Proposals *VOTING ENDED — SEE RESULTS*

[speedingbullet]

Ok, some thoughts in response from me, perhaps not in the most logical order but worth a read I hope.

Minor changes could be incorporated into the documents prior to the vote. For example, re. Pete’s initial query, clarification that Eurobowl participation for TE within the UK provides eligibility to put yourself forward for TE Captain.

I’m not the best person to comment in detail on the use of Glicko rankings rather than Elo. However, I do believe it is important the system used includes an element of decay. So, as an extreme example to make the point, if you were a top player 20 years ago but haven’t played since, you won’t still be near the top of the rankings. Also, if you played lots of tournaments when you first started playing Blood Bowl but lost most of the time, but years later you now play only a few tournaments and do very well, your older results are becoming more and more insignificant to the ranking which is as it should be.

Interesting points from a number of people about selecting the races that are part of the EGR on the basis of races likely to be encountered at Eurobowl, perhaps with the Committee selecting the races depending on the ruleset. There would probably need to be a limit on this so it doesn’t reduce the number of games in the data set too much. But perhaps 20 or even 18 teams could be picked, for example, rather than just the 23 that you’d get if you exclude only stunty teams. Seems to me there is merit in considering this idea as it could improve the quality of the ranking in terms of a specific Eurobowl and at the same time give people the opportunity to play more races just for fun i.e. with the knowledge that performance won’t impact on the EGR for the upcoming Eurobowl.

In the event that someone manages to game themselves into the top 10 but, for the sake of argument, doesn’t play to a high enough standard to be selected subjectively on merit, that is ok in this system as the Captain is free to leave out 5 of the top 10 coaches if he/she wishes.

In reality, I think it would be a tough ask for someone to force themselves into the top 10 by gaming the system rather than being there on merit.

With regard to a competitive meta, I recall previous statements from top coaches about how any aspiring TE coaches would be recognised as a top coach, an essential requirement if you are going to be selected on a purely subjective basis. The answer provided is that you need to stand out by winning tournaments. So how do you win tournaments? You play tier 0 races. So I believe there is an argument that a subjective system also encourages a highly competitive environment for aspiring TE coaches. Having some objectivity has the benefit of making the whole process a lot more visible.

The brief, as a first task for the committee, was to discuss and proposed a new charter. This is what we’ve done and the positive comments about the job we’ve done with it are much appreciated. It was clear from previous debate that a significant part of the community, including some of the most powerful voices, want to retain a purely subjective system. That option is effectively and intentionally on the ballot paper by voting “No” to Document B.

It was also clear from previous debate that a significant part of the community would like to see a change to the current selection process, including some objectivity. That option is on the ballot paper by voting “Yes” to Document B.

I believe the Document B proposal is good. Is it perfect, of course not, no system is. The committee deliberately chose to propose a system that retains a large degree of subjective selection but introduces some objectivity and improved visibility.

The final safeguard in the proposal is the framework for managing TE set out in Document A. Selection policy can be changed at any time if the Committee proposes it and it is accepted (by majority vote) by the community. Evidence of the higher echelons of the EGR being penetrated by people “gaming the system”, if it happens, would be a trigger for change.

[PeteW]

Hi Jim

Thanks for the thoughts - much appreciated.

For a while, we have debated subjective selection against qualification, but no consensus has been achieved, partly because there has been no concrete proposal to vote on.

Here, we have a concrete proposal so that the proponents of qualification can see what it would look like, and all can debate the potential affect that it might have.

This is useful in seeing what the community really want, and I look forward to the vote.

I think I may disagree with you slightly. You say that people need to play tier 0 to raise their profile and be recognised. Yes, I agree. However, under the new system, that wouldn't be enough. You would have to play a lot of tier 0, perhaps almost exclusively, which would be a shame as previously mentioned. There would be a big leap in powergaming.

Personally, I enjoy playing the 'best' race some of the time and trying to win. But I also enjoy sometimes picking a less than optimal race, for a different challenge, and a different fun experience. (Note: both are 'fun' for me, but in different ways.) It would be a shame if I felt I couldn't risk doing this, and had to use all 6 or 7 of my annual BB slots as tier 0 power-play qualification attempts.

[Wobert]

For me, I'm not sure how much water the argument against doc B holds because it will force people into playing top tier teams. It may do, but will that really have that big an impact for the people likely to change their habits because of this?

A lot of all this came about I thought (possibly wrongly) because TE was felt by many to be a bit of a closed camp, same old faces etc. Doc B gives a way of fringe coaches or those wanting to make a splash to be noticed. With that framework in place, if it pushes more coaches to the top tier then so be it. The point is it widens the pool and gives new coaches a sense of legitimacy.

In terms of impact on the tournament scene, how many coaches are we actually talking here? Outside of current TE coaches, will this realistically impact 20 coaches? If it makes them feel pressured then isn't that a good thing? That is the environment they want to break into at the elite end of the tournament scene.

I guess we'll see how it pans out!

[Pipey]

Just to clarify a few things. More to follow...

@Joe - if a regular committee member were to leave their role for any reason there would be an election to install another (that would include if a regular committee member becomes captain). See Doc A, Section 3.

@PeteW - regarding captaincy eligibility and having played EB / EO. There ought to have been an extra comma in the text, at least. It is ambiguously worded. The idea is that captains must have played Eurobowl for England. Or EurOpen outside of the UK. That could be clarified in a new Charter.

@Purplegoo - 2009 Charter vs. Current Charter. Looks like semantics to me. It was written back then and is pretty well unchanged with a few things clarified.

[Pipey]

Seems Doc B is stirring up the most debate. I’ll come in on that.

We wanted to look at a selection model which incorporated subjective picks and qualification. For me there were enough people asking for some sort of objective selection in last summer’s debates that this was something we should be putting to the community. There had also been question marks about the purely subjective picks with a degree of controversy; the Podfrey situation is already alluded to.

I note that last year’s discussion felt more inclusive than anything before it (the move to TFF as a traditional hub of UK tournament chat really helped) and I felt we should be listening to those new voices. I would also acknowledge that there were more or less as many people asking for the status quo as there were people asking for something new. Guess we knew it would be a polarising issue, indeed it was within the committee.

The idea of using rankings as a guide is to reflect the current culture in a more objective way. It is to reward consistent performance over a long period i.e. more than having a good few tournaments or even a good year. It will be hard to get into that top 10 without having played well consistently over a long period, perhaps for several years in a row. The idea of guidance with wildcards allows the captain to retain a high amount of flexibility, whether that’s with respect to races, or as a safety net if outlying stats are at odds with subjectivity. I feel it broadly reflects how selection has traditionally worked and to me that’s right. It’s a meritocracy and there should be no easy way in. The introduction of objective measures makes it more tangible and transparent for individuals wishing to make a case.

Re Wulfyn’s point about using global scores when picks are race-specific. It seems to me people aren’t always picked based on performance with a race, often it’s more about a general consistent level of performance in all matches. That’s why the global ranking felt a good measure. I note that for Cardiff I was picked to play lizardmen having only used them at one tournament in two years. Purplegoo played humans without having played them once in the year before selection. Perhaps it was general performance that got each of us in the team, rather than a good year with that race over that selection period.

I also agree there’s a fair bit of exaggeration about how this will affect the way people play i.e. the suggestion that everyone will now only take Tier 0 with us all sitting down against Undead and Wood Elves every game. A serial Tier 0 basher might not catch the eye of the captain anyway, top ten or not. The subjective element allows this. And I agree with Wobert it’s more likely to affect a relatively small number of people in the frame for TE. In my experience playing Tier 1 or Tier 0 is already fairly commonplace for those wishing to break into the team, indeed it’s already pretty prevalent amongst the TE regulars. I don’t see things changing that much.

Moreover players wishing to be picked should be demonstrating good results. If they’re thinking “I previously felt I didn’t have to prove myself, but now I do” then maybe they were thinking the wrong way in the first place. Think of it from the point of view of someone looking to break in, unsure of what needs to be done. What do they need to do to get noticed? To be fair playing goblins a lot is not likely to do that. This system gives them a measure to aim towards, albeit with no guarantees. I think it’s easier to get a handle on than merely being told “play well lots, get noticed, get in”.

Overall I’d say there is no perfect way. Subjective and objective picking each have drawbacks. We are offering a middle way which hopefully taps into the positive aspects of each. More generally I’m glad we’re having the debate, for me that’s the most important thing. By the end of this we’ll know the community’s wishes, which is the job of the committee to make sure voices are heard and consensus reached.

Thanks for the kind comments. Lots of hot air exchange and poring over laptops brought this to you! We’ll see how it goes. A fair bit of hard work but an interesting process.

[Purplegoo]

@Purplegoo - 2009 Charter vs. Current Charter. Looks like semantics to me. It was written back then and is pretty well unchanged with a few things clarified.

I think it's more than semantics when you're trying to replace it. In this post I outline where the charter has been challenged or updated since 2009; calling it the '2009 Charter' gives the impression we haven't looked at it since then and it's a totally unchanged relic or has not ever been reviewed. It would be like me calling this my 1982 face.

[Itchen Masack]

I do so hope that date was picked specifically and not just randomly

[sann0638]

With regard to a competitive meta, I recall previous statements from top coaches about how any aspiring TE coaches would be recognised as a top coach, an essential requirement if you are going to be selected on a purely subjective basis. The answer provided is that you need to stand out by winning tournaments. So how do you win tournaments? You play tier 0 races. So I believe there is an argument that a subjective system also encourages a highly competitive environment for aspiring TE coaches. Having some objectivity has the benefit of making the whole process a lot more visible.

I think the bold is important. Those who are wanting to be new to the team would have been playing Tier 0. The biggest effect could be on those who would have qualified subjectively (i.e. the core 5 or 6) rather than those striving to be included. Which is a bit rubbish for them. It's a tricky one, good luck!

[straume]

[
I think the bold is important. Those who are wanting to be new to the team would have been playing Tier 0. The biggest effect could be on those who would have qualified subjectively (i.e. the core 5 or 6) rather than those striving to be included. Which is a bit rubbish for them. It's a tricky one, good luck!

Is it rubbish for them, though? If the TE core players are Phil, Joe, Jim, Paul and Brendan they are all in the top10 at the rankings both in april2018 and april2019. So they don`t really need to change their ways at all. Just continue to play well and win, as they have been doing for years. They prove, by their results, that they are good picks for Team England (and sneaky powergamers, too! ). Of course this is why they have been picked again and again, as they should. I think the main benefit of this ranking is to give an objective (of course not perfect) indication that the subjective picks are based on merit, and not camaraderie.

The biggest change would be for Team England "fringe" players. Players like (just as examples): PeteW, mubo and Nippy. These players would have to pick strong races and win to get in the team. But is this bad? I would guess this is what a fringe player would have to do to get in regardless? I don`t think mubo plays Dark Elves for Team England in 2020 if he toys around with goblins and follow his dream of doing the 26 for the next half year.

PS! Would love to see a global global ranking to see how myself (and everyone) is placed in this ranking.

[besters]

With regard to a competitive meta, I recall previous statements from top coaches about how any aspiring TE coaches would be recognised as a top coach, an essential requirement if you are going to be selected on a purely subjective basis. The answer provided is that you need to stand out by winning tournaments. So how do you win tournaments? You play tier 0 races. So I believe there is an argument that a subjective system also encourages a highly competitive environment for aspiring TE coaches. Having some objectivity has the benefit of making the whole process a lot more visible.

I think the bold is important. Those who are wanting to be new to the team would have been playing Tier 0. The biggest effect could be on those who would have qualified subjectively (i.e. the core 5 or 6) rather than those striving to be included. Which is a bit rubbish for them. It's a tricky one, good luck!

I am not entirely convinced by this. You can get good results playing Tier 1 or 2 teams. Looking at the tables I am just around the top 10 and certainly don't play Tier 0 most of the time, perhaps I should?

I would be interested to hear what people think is sufficient to be noticed? Is it any or all of the following:

winning several tournaments, how many?
consistently having a high win/loss ratio, what percentage?
playing a wide variety of races
high elo/glicko rankings
having a wider profile outside playing games, i.e. running a tournament, being involved with the NAF etc.
compatible personality

I think one of the things missing from the conversation is the "high bar" required to break into the England team. Would it make sense to put something together around the wider parameters that should/would attract a captain's interest as well as just the one ranking?

[mubo]

I think the discussion this is generating is good and useful. As a committee member, I am cautious about implementing this idea. But for me the negatives outweigh the positives. I think I am less worried than most about the impact on the tournament scene. I took my strongest race to a small local tournament (Screaming Spires) this year- and I don't _think_ I impacted anyone's experience negatively(!?). I don't get to many tournaments at the moment- so if I have 5 a year I'll choose a top race at a competitive tournament. If I attend SS next year- this qualification would mean I would probably take my strongest race- but as someone on the fringe of TE I recognise that as a choice/compromise I make.

For me the main negative is: Glicko is of limited utility. As the person that coded up this implementation of glicko- I probably have a better understanding of it than most.

Like all ranking systems glicko isn't perfect. This is because there are not enough games between the top coaches. For example given the top 4 in the 2019 ranking Brendan shared. In the last 2 years, #1 has played #2 0 times. #1 vs #3 2 times, #1 vs #4 1 time. #2 vs #3 3 times, #2 vs #4 1 time. #3 vs #4 2 times. Many of those were at Monkeybowl with games involving slaan, pact and goblins. (this also applies further down the rankings I haven't played Petew for 10 years). Therefore- the ranking doesn't score how well these coaches perfom against each other, but how they perform against other players on the circuit. As the majority of players play few tournaments, Glicko makes a guess as to how good each coach is. The discrepancy between these guesses and true ability probably informs more of the ordering than we would like to admit.

It would be relatively easy for a coach like Pete to "game" his ranking up a few notches from where it is now by attending small local tournaments with a tier 0 race. This would probably be the difference between being him being a top 10 easily justifable pick, and a captains pick. Then, if the difference between someone ranked 12 and 7 is whether they have attended some local tournaments- perhaps we are placing too much emphasis on something essentially arbitrary.

I think we the committee should encourage captains to look carefully at rankings when making choices, and they should justify them in writing. Purplegoos example in Ostend 2014 is a good example of how a captain should do this well.

PS! Would love to see a global global ranking to see how myself (and everyone) is placed in this ranking.

Off topic (and this is supposed to be TE chat)- It's been done- but I haven't shared it because I think it greatly overvalues players playing in some locales (eg US) and greatly undervalues some others (eg France).

[mubo]

...

I think Jim makes a super important point. I think part of this stems from the "declaration of interest" process. Part of the committee's role would be to engage widely, and include people who maybe wouldn't put themselves forward for consideration.

[Joemanji]

For me, I'm not sure how much water the argument against doc B holds because it will force people into playing top tier teams. It may do, but will that really have that big an impact for the people likely to change their habits because of this?

Read your own signature if you would like an indication of how much people care about and chase the numbers. Or look at the comments from people who haven't yet played for TE in this thread. Or think about the times you have heard people talk about how chuffed they are to be 5th best Chaos Pact coach in their region, or to have finished 74th at the NAFC. People care about their numbers.

[Wulfyn]

Question regarding the declaration of interest - how are these to be done? In the past we have had a mixture of public and private declarations. Fine when it is all subjective, but in a new objective world should we know who we have to beat?

[Jip]

In the grim darkness of the far future, I’d actually like to play for TE, y’know.