| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/26/2007 03:22:40 PM · #1 |
Disclaimer: SC, If I'm out of line creating a duplicate thread or jumping the gun on your talks about concerns, please feel free to hide/lock this thread. If you think a consolidated thread is a good idea, please change the title to Official...
To the community: Here is a spot where we can post all our concerns about the running of the DPL and it's impact on the DPC community as a whole. If you have a new concern, please start your comments with NEW in bold type. This will help SC/Admins to track concerns!
Please keep this conversation limited to concerns or discussions about concerns!
Message edited by author 2007-06-26 19:27:18.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2007 04:25:36 PM · #2 |
NEW
I'm concerned that team Trigger Happy won't get a spot in the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2007 10:13:03 PM · #3 |
Question send to SC instead
Message edited by author 2007-06-27 02:19:02. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 03:39:58 AM · #4 |
| my only concern is that the team threads will disappear. i think they should stay active until the next season and then locked (as opposed to hidden). |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 04:58:43 AM · #5 |
| Any thought to opening them up for view to all? The one problem I do see with that is we had a lot of "what about this one?" posts where we no longer have the shots in our workshops, so all the links would be broken. Oh, and we may have talked trash about the Hogs. So never mind... :-) |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 05:24:24 AM · #6 |
| YEs, but you were beating the hogs for three days, so youdeserved it!!!@! |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 05:27:56 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Any thought to opening them up for view to all? The one problem I do see with that is we had a lot of "what about this one?" posts where we no longer have the shots in our workshops, so all the links would be broken. Oh, and we may have talked trash about the Hogs. So never mind... :-) |
Hell no it cant be public, due to the fact that the SC couldnt even view them during DPL (yes they changed the rules). Theres alot of content no suitable for the site in our thread. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 05:55:52 AM · #8 |
LOL, yeh we are a bunch of perverts.
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Any thought to opening them up for view to all? The one problem I do see with that is we had a lot of "what about this one?" posts where we no longer have the shots in our workshops, so all the links would be broken. Oh, and we may have talked trash about the Hogs. So never mind... :-) |
Hell no it cant be public, due to the fact that the SC couldnt even view them during DPL (yes they changed the rules). Theres alot of content no suitable for the site in our thread. |
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 07:33:23 AM · #9 |
New: we need a wildcard system. Our Division has:
- the 1st, 2nd, and 4th highest averages out of 72 teams (all are over 6.4)
- every team with an average above 6.0 (the only Division where that's true)
Unlike sports, where one team can affect the other team's score, this says to me that high averages do indicate a team's success against the entire set of Divisions at A, B, or C level, not just within their Division.
No matter what, though, I really do think the Hogs should be rotated among the A Divisions. I don't mind them competing with whatever team makeup they like, but I do think that our Division structure means other teams in their Division have a much harder time making the playoffs.
None of which does anything to do lessen how much I enjoyed the season and learned from participating. DPL overall is a great thing! :)
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 08:23:03 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
New: we need a wildcard system. Our Division has:
- the 1st, 2nd, and 4th highest averages out of 72 teams (all are over 6.4)
- every team with an average above 6.0 (the only Division where that's true)
Unlike sports, where one team can affect the other team's score, this says to me that high averages do indicate a team's success against the entire set of Divisions at A, B, or C level, not just within their Division.
No matter what, though, I really do think the Hogs should be rotated among the A Divisions. I don't mind them competing with whatever team makeup they like, but I do think that our Division structure means other teams in their Division have a much harder time making the playoffs.
None of which does anything to do lessen how much I enjoyed the season and learned from participating. DPL overall is a great thing! :) |
Don't worry Jeffrey, the Hogs are not necessarily looking to compete each and every season.
I do think a Wildcard would be a good idea. Division winners along with next 4 highest averages go to playoffs (or the proper number to make for good brackets in case next season is different than 72 teams) for an 8-team playoff (with the same thing going on for A, B, and C).
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 08:31:58 AM · #11 |
Just a thought, but sports such as bowling and golf have a handicap system to level the playing field for their participants.
It let's the lowly hacker such as myself, compete with the pro.
Maybe if we implemented some sort of handicapping, it wouldn't matter what division teams were in. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 08:36:03 AM · #12 |
| I think the teams should be randomly chosen at the beginning of each season. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 08:43:32 AM · #13 |
How about being able to place a team member on "injured reserve" and being able to recruit from the free agency to fill in. This season, we had to deal with a family death...which sidelined one of our team members for four weeks and my back injury that put me out of commission for part of the season. Additionally, I am having surgery at the end of July and will probably miss a portion of the next season.
My team has graciously said that they don't want to lose me...but, I think it would be nice if they were able to have someone fill in for me short term.
Just a thought...
(PS...if this has already been addressed or is a silly idea, please excuse me...that Oxycodone can make me a little loopy!)
Message edited by author 2007-06-27 12:45:08. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 08:54:56 AM · #14 |
I'll repeat here a suggestion I made a long time ago. Please bear in mind that I suggested this way back when, after WPL1, long before the uber-team of "Ribbon Hogs" was formed:
While I understand that a lot of the pleasure of competing in DPL involves being on a team of like-minded people, and the camaraderie that comes from that, I don't think it's a good idea, long-term, to allow the best shooters to clump together in a single team. I have two suggestions for "fixing" that; one of them has been discussed elsewhere, a "draft" where teams choose members in rotation, picking from an available pool. This would allow those who want an affinity team to draft accordingly, and those who want a more varied team to accomplish that as well.
The other suggestion is to divide all the potential participants in DPL into A, B, and C groups based on some combination of DPC average score and DPC ribbons won. A team would be allowed no more than, say, 2 A members and 3 B members. A team that had no A members could have 5 B members. At least two members of every team must be C members.
The numbers might be changed, but that's the principle. They use it in making teams for golf tournaments all the time. And if we ever did go to random team creation, some form of this ABC pool should be used to guard against a random team having all "weak" or all "stromng" members.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 08:58:16 AM · #15 |
This is a copy of something I had in another thread...
New to this tread!
My lil bit... I had a great season... met some great people... had fun... learned sooooo much about photography and improved. I hope they don't change too much. Maybe a competitive league, with the higher seeded teams, and a regular league. My division was great all the teams where about the same seed and you always had a chance to win. If we ended up in a different division, it might have been ugly. Just my thought, don't take too long cause We had FUN, FUN, FUN!
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 08:59:11 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by imagesbytlp:
(PS...if this has already been addressed or is a silly idea, please excuse me...that Oxycodone can make me a little loopy!) |
I think the DPL should institute mandatory drug testing. Drug induced loopiness provides an unfair advantage. |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 09:00:03 AM · #17 |
| I think that this dpl season have changed dpc and is a my idea is better now of before. Randomly chosen team? what randomly, the team that can run in dpl or the members assigned to a team with a randomly process? In hour team there is great collaboration, many many photographs discussed before the submition, errors that someone,principally me, don't see and other members yes. a great experience that i hope could go in the next season. I think that if the team want to exist the threads must be visible and only for the team. If someone want go out of one team, well he could go in the free agent pool and the team start a new search for another member(as in every sport). |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 09:01:46 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'll repeat here a suggestion I made a long time ago. Please bear in mind that I suggested this way back when, after WPL1, long before the uber-team of "Ribbon Hogs" was formed:
While I understand that a lot of the pleasure of competing in DPL involves being on a team of like-minded people, and the camaraderie that comes from that, I don't think it's a good idea, long-term, to allow the best shooters to clump together in a single team. I have two suggestions for "fixing" that; one of them has been discussed elsewhere, a "draft" where teams choose members in rotation, picking from an available pool. This would allow those who want an affinity team to draft accordingly, and those who want a more varied team to accomplish that as well.
The other suggestion is to divide all the potential participants in DPL into A, B, and C groups based on some combination of DPC average score and DPC ribbons won. A team would be allowed no more than, say, 2 A members and 3 B members. A team that had no A members could have 5 B members. At least two members of every team must be C members.
The numbers might be changed, but that's the principle. They use it in making teams for golf tournaments all the time. And if we ever did go to random team creation, some form of this ABC pool should be used to guard against a random team having all "weak" or all "stromng" members.
R. |
The problems I see with this are:
1. Look at the list of people who signed up wanting to be on a team that were never chosen.
2. Being picked last for any team is a kick in the teeth (so to speak, from a school yard perspective).
3. Some of us are only in it for the fun, therefore, we probably would not be picked at all (not serious enough).
4. Not being picked, you miss out on a great learning opportunity, the camaraderie that went along with it, etc.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 09:08:25 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by imagesbytlp:
(PS...if this has already been addressed or is a silly idea, please excuse me...that Oxycodone can make me a little loopy!) |
I think the DPL should institute mandatory drug testing. Drug induced loopiness provides an unfair advantage. |
Thanks Ken...a well needed laugh!!! Although, the laugh caused more pain, which in turn...sent me off to the medicine cabinet!! I hope Lohan doesn't snore! |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 09:11:11 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
The problems I see with this are:
1. Look at the list of people who signed up wanting to be on a team that were never chosen.
2. Being picked last for any team is a kick in the teeth (so to speak, from a school yard perspective).
3. Some of us are only in it for the fun, therefore, we probably would not be picked at all (not serious enough).
4. Not being picked, you miss out on a great learning opportunity, the camaraderie that went along with it, etc. |
Referring to the idea of A,B,C pools from which teams must choose certain numbers of their players:
1. This is no different in that regard, the pool still exists; with the ABC system, more of the less-experienced shooters might be chosen.
2. There is no "last" in this system (though there would be in a draft, agreed): the only difference between this proposed system and the one currently in place is that you HAVE to have at least 2 "weaker"members, and you CAN'T have more than 2 "stronger" members.
3. I don't see where this is relevant, in the ABC system: if you WANT to have a team full of "just for the fun of it" shooters,you are free to make one up, as long as at least two of the team members are from the "C" group.
4. The ABC system does not negatively affect your opportunity to be picked; it probably enhances it.
My preference,incidentally, is for ABC pool assignments, NOT a draft, which has many logistical problems. In the ABC system, teams would be created in exactly the same way they are now, by consensus of team captains and members; the only change would be in the homogeneity of the teams.
The goals of the ABC pool system are twofold: be sure that at least two members of every team are eager but "inexperienced" shooters, and to ensure that no team can stack the decks by recruiting only superstars.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 09:17:37 AM · #21 |
My only concern is that people keep voicing their opinions about how the DPL has killed scores, killed their chances at winning ribbons, ect, will kill the fun that 72 teams had while competing. IMHO the DPL has brought a welcome change to the site, and that is member participation and new friends are being made. I think its made the site and its membership stronger. There are a couple of bugs to be worked out but overall it was great, and I loved the fact that it was brought into a site I already enjoy visiting.
MattO
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 09:30:04 AM · #22 |
| I think that everyone could chose the team composition that he prefer. In every championship there are the dream teams and not always they win. The only change that I would want is the direct elimination after the first round and the playoffs with 16 teams. with the direct elimination a medium team could win even with the superstars . |
|
|
|
06/27/2007 09:44:51 AM · #23 |
There are enough "superstars" on the site to allow lots of teams to have them. If Hogs did not exist, then we'd merely be talking about the next highest elite teams (of which 20D is one).
Personally I think the stratifying of teams has been very successful. It allows all teams to be competitive within their Division. "Team with no name" is an example. They are 4-1 in their division with a 5.0000 team average. I'm sure it's just as fun for them to win as it is for 20D. All team members feel like they are contributing instead of having people feel like they are "baggage" while the superstars rake in the scores. I wouldn't feel like it was very much fun if my shot never counted as one of the Top 4 every week. Don't you think this will happen if teams have artificial enforcements placed on them to ensure there are both superstars and below average photogs?
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 09:54:42 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There are enough "superstars" on the site to allow lots of teams to have them. If Hogs did not exist, then we'd merely be talking about the next highest elite teams (of which 20D is one).
Personally I think the stratifying of teams has been very successful. It allows all teams to be competitive within their Division. "Team with no name" is an example. They are 4-1 in their division with a 5.0000 team average. I'm sure it's just as fun for them to win as it is for 20D. All team members feel like they are contributing instead of having people feel like they are "baggage" while the superstars rake in the scores. I wouldn't feel like it was very much fun if my shot never counted as one of the Top 4 every week. Don't you think this will happen if teams have artificial enforcements placed on them to ensure there are both superstars and below average photogs? |
Don't get me wrong, I'm not "complaining" about your team Doc. I'm just questioning whether it's best for the DPL in the long run to allow teams like that. The points you are making in your second paragraph are certainly valid ones. Another of my suggestions had been to run DPL as a ladder, with winning teams moving up a bracket and losing teams down a bracket, which is similar to what we have now except we use playoffs and ladders don't have those.
Anyway, the best analogy to what we have now is sports leagues, like Pro Football or baseball, to name two examples; and these leagues have found it to be in their best interests to use salary caps or spending limits to restrict any one team's ability to corner all the best talent. The goal is "parity", the "on any given Sunday" scenario, and it works fairly well.
R.
And yes, Team 20D is one of the better-stacked teams; I think I'm statistically the worst player on our team :-)
Message edited by author 2007-06-27 13:56:26.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2007 09:57:35 AM · #25 |
Shanksware above mentioned a handicapping system. How about this as a suggestion?
The difference between a team's average score for the week and the seeding average forms the team's score. Obviously, there would have to be some sort of arbitrary seeding average applied to those individuals or teams who have not entered enough challenges prior to the league starting.
Please note that this idea is very much a 'work in progress'.
|
|
