Weighted Scale, options?

[victory]

So with the system proposed the guy ranked 100 would get zero points? Doesn't seem right. He should get something for even making someone's list.

[Grimmas]

So with the system proposed the guy ranked 100 would get zero points? Doesn't seem right. He should get something for even making someone's list.

He does, the people who don't make the list all get -1, so getting 0 for 100 is something.

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't agree with -1 for not making someone's list.

[Grimmas]

I don't agree with -1 for not making someone's list.

Then everything would have to be shifted up so #100 would get one point.

[Jimmy Redman]

Could you just jig the same system Dylan mentioned up one so that #100 gets 1 point and go from there? And just tweak something when you get to the weighted scores at the other end.

 

EDIT: Yeah, that.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'd prefer that.

 

1 for 100, 0 for not making someone's list.

[victory]

I'd prefer that.

 

1 for 100, 0 for not making someone's list.

I'd agree with this as well. The other way it almost seems like the guy is being punished for being #100.

[Grimmas]

 

I'd prefer that.

 

1 for 100, 0 for not making someone's list.

I'd agree with this as well. The other way it almost seems like the guy is being punished for being #100.

 

The other way with 0 for #100 is not a punishment when everybody that isn't on the list gets -1. Obviously if you drop the -1 for people not making a list, then 0 for 100 makes no sense. However the original way is not a punishment.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

 

I'd prefer that.

 

1 for 100, 0 for not making someone's list.

I'd agree with this as well. The other way it almost seems like the guy is being punished for being #100.

 

The other way with 0 for #100 is not a punishment when everybody that isn't on the list gets -1. Obviously if you drop the -1 for people not making a list, then 0 for 100 makes no sense. However the original way is not a punishment.

 

It is. I'm not voting for Lucha guys, as you know. I really like Negro Casas, and wouldn't want him actively punished by me not selecting him.

 

If 20 other guys don't vote for Casas, he's on -20 in one system, and 0 in the other.

 

So he's getting punished.

[Jimmy Redman]

They were talking about #100 being a punishment, not being left off.

[JerryvonKramer]

I was under the impression that he was saying every person not on the list would get a -1.

[Jimmy Redman]

The conversation they're having is about the Laprade System Dylan originally described, he's explaining why #100 being 0 isn't a punishment in that system, since under 100 gets minus and thus a score of zero is less like a bad thing and more like breaking even. He's not saying that the minus points aren't a punishment.

 

You're having two different conversations, is what I'm saying.

[Loss]

The other thing: If we do -1s, I think we should close off new nominations. I know I'd hate seeing more names nominated because the very act of putting more people up for discussion penalizes those who are already there.

[Jimmy Redman]

From this thread I feel like we're all agreed that we shouldn't use minus points.

[El McKell]

I'm against the minus points because it'll look dumb when someone appears on a couple of bollots and has a score of -6 or whatever. It's not actually a punishment anymore than 0 is when you increase all the other scores by one, the results would be identical. You could give -50 for not appearing -49 for being 100th and so on that wouldn't be any sort of a punishment for not being top 50

[Phil Schneider]

Yeah the minus points is what would punish luchadores

[Grimmas]

so are we all good with laparde with no minus and it shifted up so 100 spot gets 1 point?

[victory]

I'd be fine with that.

[DR Ackermann]

Sure.