BBRC Hot List - 2003

[GalakStarscraper]

When making statements about polling the community, make it clear that you polled the BB Online community or specifically Talk Blood Bowl or Blood Bowl Central.

Although it doesn't always feel like it, the online BB community is actually a small percentage of the total Blood Bowl community.

Sure neo ... should I also mention then in the list that you as one of the BBRC members was one of the players who thought that lost TZ players could assist to be very precise who I polled so I could say the online BB Community and one BBRC member. .... okay that's a cheap shot, but I feel like your comment is as well.

Sorry JKL, I find this nit picky to most annoying extreme. You know who I'm talking about as well as the other 6 members of the BBRC and everyone here. I'm trying to help you guys and I get nitpicked back.

I'm very well aware of this fact, I think everyone is. I get feedback also through blood-bowl.net. If I had phone numbers for league commishes I'd call them and get their input also. Sorry ... JKL ... just feeling very dumped on by your comment.

Galak

So fine, I'll change everything to say this like you asked, but I had to express this since it basically wrecked my mood for the day ... carrying on.

I guess my problem is that I completely reject the idea the internet community is not a representative sample of the world. My opinion since I do stat sampling for a living ... I really trying to understand my the BBRC members (and its not just you Neo) continue to hit us with ... "Your opinions don't really matter that much because the community is larger than you". Okay bottom line is I'm sick of that by a big margin. Prove to me that the sample of folks on the internet and that email me through my site are not a representative sample of the world population. You cannot ... any more than I can prove that it is. But I sure as heck am willing to bet that the online is a better sample than you suggest especially when the annual and the handbook have web addresses in them.

I'm just really really sick of hearing that our opinion is discounted because the community is larger than those online. Sampling is a valid method of looking at the world and I'm not sure why the mix of 4 different communities isn't a valid sample.

Okay I feel better know having finally said that ... ... continuing on.

Galak

[Zombie]

I agree with Bevan - I really couldn't care either way if catches are forced or not, but I really think that pickups should be forced.

I feel that i need to defend Bevan here because i know that he doesn't check this forum very often and he might not read your posts (plus us old BBC members need to stick together!)

He doesn't want forced catches, and doesn't care about forced pickups. And he'd rather if neither were forced. That's almost the opposite of your position, so don't go saying that you agree with him!

[wesleytj]

i must say galak that I think it's likely that the online community isn't a perfectly representative "scientific" sample, because it's not randomly selected from the population. the people who take time to post on forums such as this care more about bb, pretty much by definition, than those who don't.

however, that being said, I also think you should largely ignore that fact, for the following reasons:
1. It's the only readily acessible sample there is.
2. The people who care most about the game SHOULD (imo) have the most say in it's future, both directly and indirectly.

[GalakStarscraper]

i must say galak that I think it's likely that the online community isn't a perfectly representative "scientific" sample, because it's not randomly selected from the population.

I'll agree with this based on my work ... however part of my job is helping pick samples in imperfect population also ... which is what you have with the BB community really.

however, that being said, I also think you should largely ignore that fact, for the following reasons:
1. It's the only readily acessible sample there is.
2. The people who care most about the game SHOULD (imo) have the most say in it's future, both directly and indirectly.

And this is really my point I guess. I don't understand discounting an argument when a sample from the greater population is not obtainable. Also with regards to the specific item, Neo, was referring too ... I would argue until I die that if 80% of the "informed" community got the lost TZ blocking question wrong that that would mean that 90%+ of the "uninformed" community would get it wrong. It also pressed my button because Neo was one of the guys who answered it incorectly and then he hits me with the online vs greater community statement. Okay, okay ... off my soapbox. I like JKL ... I really do and when I played at UCon he was a good chap; so no more venom here. like I said moving on.

Galak

[Hox-ii]

That's almost the opposite of your position, so don't go saying that you agree with him!

Ack, I'm sorry. I completely misread his post. Well, at least you all know where I stand on the issue.

[Balrog]

Galak, can you this add to the list of things to do: Add an index to the LRB!!!

-Balrog

[GalakStarscraper]

Galak, can you this add to the list of things to do: Add an index to the LRB!!!

-Balrog

You know ... I should be able to do it actually. If I had the time I could do a keyword index program on the LRB. .... one of those things for my non-existant down time....

Galak

[Drakeular]

Great List Galak

Just wondering if the review of the Handicap Table wil be added, as it was in last years list.

Readdress the handicap table. If its going to be a handicap table, lose the worthless rolls that have little to no impact on the match and review the really powerful ones for toning down.

Drakeular

[Bevan]

Firstly Galak, can I thank for you for time and effort in collating this list, and I suggest that even if this forum (and the NAF site) is not representative of all players it does represent the most active and enthusiastic.

I checked through Oberwald looking for anomalies and found that all of the serious issues were covered last time. Thanks again.

So my very short list is -

In addition to a complete list of events causing turnovers (in one place) we could use a list of Actions (in one place). This not only clarifies Pass/Hand-off but is needed for throwing bombs (is it a pass?, can you throw more than one per turn?) and starting a chainsaw. Is use of a dagger a separate action or a Block/Blitz? At present these apply only to Star Players but secret weapons are being introduced for other players.

There were some items listed last year that were noted for "consideration next year". Did you put them back on the list to remind the committee?

Can we have a D3 for Riot and Pitch Invasion? A 5 or 6 can totally ruin a good game.

[Smeborg]

Hi Galak -

I like the list.

I can't see the following on the list (clarification):

"What happens when a stat of 1 is reduced by injury?"

Cheers

[neoliminal]

When making statements about polling the community, make it clear that you polled the BB Online community or specifically Talk Blood Bowl or Blood Bowl Central.

Although it doesn't always feel like it, the online BB community is actually a small percentage of the total Blood Bowl community.

Sure neo ... should I also mention then in the list that you as one of the BBRC members was one of the players who thought that lost TZ players could assist to be very precise who I polled so I could say the online BB Community and one BBRC member. .... okay that's a cheap shot, but I feel like your comment is as well.

Sorry JKL, I find this nit picky to most annoying extreme. You know who I'm talking about as well as the other 6 members of the BBRC and everyone here. I'm trying to help you guys and I get nitpicked back.

I'm very well aware of this fact, I think everyone is. I get feedback also through blood-bowl.net from a lot of folks who email directly with questions and concerns ... how should I document them for you.. Give me phone numbers for league commishes and I'll call them and get their input also. Sorry ... JKL ... just feeling very dumped on by your comment.

Galak

So fine, I'll change everything to say this like you asked, but I had to express this since it basically wrecked my mood for the rest of today ... carrying on, thanks John.

Sorry Galak. Didn't mean to rain on your day.

I'm just trying to remove barriers to getting this list used and I know a certain BBRC member who can get hung up on these kinds of details.

You're doing a great job, thanks for the support.

[Deathwing]

How about an addition to the Strong Arm description to the effect that it doesn't allow you to dump off to short pass range and it doesn't allow you to throw a long pass in a blizzard?
This is one of those things that comes up on the GW site on a frequent basis so is obviously causing confusion.

[Ghost of Pariah]

I'd like to see the rule book re organized so that all of the info on one topic is in one spot!!

Example: Argue the call the should be in the FOULING rules. Get rid of the the whole "Extra Rules" chapter and put the individual extra rules with the chapter they pertain to. "Interceptions & Fumbles" and "Handing Off" should be with "Throwing the Football" and then follow that chapter with "Throwing Team-mates." This would help rookies a lot! I think a lot of rules questions could be solved by this simple action.

I mean does anybody really play without the extra rules? The only time I have seen it is in an instructional game.

[Anthony_TBBF]

I'd like to see the rule book re organized so that all of the info on one topic is in one spot!!

I don't think you'll see this until somewhere down the road when the current rulebook needs to be reprinted. It would be great to keep in mind for the next printing though.

[Milo]

4. "If I get 2 MA stat increases, and then suffer aging or a serious injury that removes a point of MA. If I get an MA increase for my next skill roll, can I take it? (IE ... does the 2 limit to increases the number of increases or the current real change in the stat value?)"

Does that really need answering? Sorry, but that's really a dumb question. Knowing the BBRC, they'll read it, say "that's a dumb question, we won't even answer that" and then be less inclined to answer the other questions on your list.

Zombie -- that's just not the case. It's true that Jervis used to answer questions that way, but most of the BBRC (and even Jervis now, I think) would discuss it and make an official ruling. Galak's hotlist is actually a huge help for us, since we usually can't catch every thread that pops up.

I know I would never answer in that manner, and even if there was a truly dumb question on the list, it wouldn't make us think less of the rest.

Milo