WXV Rules Discussion 2018

[Nige]

Going back to the loophole discussion now, as much as emergency loophole is a tactic used by most SC coaches, I do think that it's probably a bit too messy for WXV

I do however like the simplicity of introducing VC loophole to World's

When we VC loop in SC we are required to use a non playing player to bank that score, and that results in a player on the benches score counting, but then that tips into the emergency loop side of things so to avoid that I would propose a simpler way

We scrap CC, and move to VC and C. Each week your VC is someone who plays before your C and if you want to bank the VC score you simply post in the thread advising Purps of so, however you must post advising so before your C plays otherwise you miss banking it and your C remains as captain

This means there is no need to field a non player, emergency loop etc so we avoid all of that and keep things nice and simple

Don't want to bank your VC? Great, nothing to do, just leave things as is and your C remains as chosen

Want to bank your VC? Simple, just make it known in the weeks match day thread prior to your C playing

As someone who just doesn’t care for loopholing all that much, I don’t really mind this. It at least could make things a little interesting rather than people maybe banking on a “perma-captain” and adds a little bit of a risk vs reward strategy as it could maybe backfire. It also promotes a bit more activity which is always nice considering sometimes coaches aren’t seen until they’re due to post their team the following week.

[GoLions]

Sounds like we can put the flood attack ruck talks to bed

When the votes go out, it will be

A) Keep Flood Attack as is
B) Keep Flood Attack but add ruck rule
C) Scrap it all

Hopefully we don't get any if many votes for A, but because it's the current process it needs to be an option I guess

Keep as is

[GoLions]

Going back to the loophole discussion now, as much as emergency loophole is a tactic used by most SC coaches, I do think that it's probably a bit too messy for WXV

I do however like the simplicity of introducing VC loophole to World's

When we VC loop in SC we are required to use a non playing player to bank that score, and that results in a player on the benches score counting, but then that tips into the emergency loop side of things so to avoid that I would propose a simpler way

We scrap CC, and move to VC and C. Each week your VC is someone who plays before your C and if you want to bank the VC score you simply post in the thread advising Purps of so, however you must post advising so before your C plays otherwise you miss banking it and your C remains as captain

This means there is no need to field a non player, emergency loop etc so we avoid all of that and keep things nice and simple

Don't want to bank your VC? Great, nothing to do, just leave things as is and your C remains as chosen

Want to bank your VC? Simple, just make it known in the weeks match day thread prior to your C playing

Isn't part of loopholing that you risk being one emg down? Not a fan of this at all.

[Holz]

Sounds like we can put the flood attack ruck talks to bed

When the votes go out, it will be

A) Keep Flood Attack as is
B) Keep Flood Attack but add ruck rule
C) Scrap it all

Hopefully we don't get any if many votes for A, but because it's the current process it needs to be an option I guess

Keep as is

on this perhaps for voting an ordering.

As basically if the vote is that then ill be wanting to see anything but B

C is ideal, A is fine, B i hate

D i dont care should be an option, as if you really dont care about a rule, that should b taken into account and not be as influential as someone who really does care about a rule.

[Holz]

On that I think there should be a change to trade voting, this one is certainly needed either the vote changes to.

1. Team A wins, Trade is Neutral, Team B wins

2 Team A wins alot, Team A wins slightly, Trade is Neutral, Team B wins slightly, Team B wins alot.

option 1 is probably easier.


essentially if 9 coaches say team A wins, and 7 coaches say team B wins then the result under the current system is 16 votes to neg and is fails.

but in reality the fact the coaches are split shows this trade is actually very even and should be instead looked at as 2 teams net think A wins.

That way if i trade fails it can be negotiated properly with 1 team winning and one team losing. We have had a few deals blocked as some coaches like a player on Team A and some dont.

[GoLions]

Sounds like we can put the flood attack ruck talks to bed

When the votes go out, it will be

A) Keep Flood Attack as is
B) Keep Flood Attack but add ruck rule
C) Scrap it all

Hopefully we don't get any if many votes for A, but because it's the current process it needs to be an option I guess

Keep as is

on this perhaps for voting an ordering.

As basically if the vote is that then ill be wanting to see anything but B

C is ideal, A is fine, B i hate

D i dont care should be an option, as if you really dont care about a rule, that should b taken into account and not be as influential as someone who really does care about a rule.

Big fan of the i don't care option actually

[GoLions]

On that I think there should be a change to trade voting, this one is certainly needed either the vote changes to.

1. Team A wins, Trade is Neutral, Team B wins

2 Team A wins alot, Team A wins slightly, Trade is Neutral, Team B wins slightly, Team B wins alot.

option 1 is probably easier.


essentially if 9 coaches say team A wins, and 7 coaches say team B wins then the result under the current system is 16 votes to neg and is fails.

but in reality the fact the coaches are split shows this trade is actually very even and should be instead looked at as 2 teams net think A wins.

That way if i trade fails it can be negotiated properly with 1 team winning and one team losing. We have had a few deals blocked as some coaches like a player on Team A and some dont.

Also a fan of this.

[RaisyDaisy]

Going back to the loophole discussion now, as much as emergency loophole is a tactic used by most SC coaches, I do think that it's probably a bit too messy for WXV

I do however like the simplicity of introducing VC loophole to World's

When we VC loop in SC we are required to use a non playing player to bank that score, and that results in a player on the benches score counting, but then that tips into the emergency loop side of things so to avoid that I would propose a simpler way

We scrap CC, and move to VC and C. Each week your VC is someone who plays before your C and if you want to bank the VC score you simply post in the thread advising Purps of so, however you must post advising so before your C plays otherwise you miss banking it and your C remains as captain

This means there is no need to field a non player, emergency loop etc so we avoid all of that and keep things nice and simple

Don't want to bank your VC? Great, nothing to do, just leave things as is and your C remains as chosen

Want to bank your VC? Simple, just make it known in the weeks match day thread prior to your C playing

Isn't part of loopholing that you risk being one emg down? Not a fan of this at all.

Rarely ever happens tho - being impacted. In SC most people use a dud R3 etc to bank their VC

One EMG down can happen easier when you're actually looping players but we're not, this is just VC

This way just keeps it simpler

[Levi434]

What about super attacks, mega floods and stretching?

[Nige]

On that I think there should be a change to trade voting, this one is certainly needed either the vote changes to.

1. Team A wins, Trade is Neutral, Team B wins

2 Team A wins alot, Team A wins slightly, Trade is Neutral, Team B wins slightly, Team B wins alot.

option 1 is probably easier.


essentially if 9 coaches say team A wins, and 7 coaches say team B wins then the result under the current system is 16 votes to neg and is fails.

but in reality the fact the coaches are split shows this trade is actually very even and should be instead looked at as 2 teams net think A wins.

That way if i trade fails it can be negotiated properly with 1 team winning and one team losing. We have had a few deals blocked as some coaches like a player on Team A and some dont.

Also a fan of this.

This makes sense.

[RaisyDaisy]

Sounds like we can put the flood attack ruck talks to bed

When the votes go out, it will be

A) Keep Flood Attack as is
B) Keep Flood Attack but add ruck rule
C) Scrap it all

Hopefully we don't get any if many votes for A, but because it's the current process it needs to be an option I guess

Keep as is

on this perhaps for voting an ordering.

As basically if the vote is that then ill be wanting to see anything but B

C is ideal, A is fine, B i hate

D i dont care should be an option, as if you really dont care about a rule, that should b taken into account and not be as influential as someone who really does care about a rule.

Or, we could just not make voting mandatory for everyone, instead of putting D on every one

I too like your voting proposal

[Holz]

Sounds like we can put the flood attack ruck talks to bed

When the votes go out, it will be

A) Keep Flood Attack as is
B) Keep Flood Attack but add ruck rule
C) Scrap it all

Hopefully we don't get any if many votes for A, but because it's the current process it needs to be an option I guess

Keep as is

on this perhaps for voting an ordering.

As basically if the vote is that then ill be wanting to see anything but B

C is ideal, A is fine, B i hate

D i dont care should be an option, as if you really dont care about a rule, that should b taken into account and not be as influential as someone who really does care about a rule.

Or, we could just not make voting mandatory for everyone, instead of putting D on every one

I too like your voting proposal

I can only speak for myself but some rules i care about and some i really dont mind. So id be putting A B or C for most but 1-2 id be putting D down.

[meow meow]

Going back to the loophole discussion now, as much as emergency loophole is a tactic used by most SC coaches, I do think that it's probably a bit too messy for WXV

I do however like the simplicity of introducing VC loophole to World's

When we VC loop in SC we are required to use a non playing player to bank that score, and that results in a player on the benches score counting, but then that tips into the emergency loop side of things so to avoid that I would propose a simpler way

We scrap CC, and move to VC and C. Each week your VC is someone who plays before your C and if you want to bank the VC score you simply post in the thread advising Purps of so, however you must post advising so before your C plays otherwise you miss banking it and your C remains as captain

This means there is no need to field a non player, emergency loop etc so we avoid all of that and keep things nice and simple

Don't want to bank your VC? Great, nothing to do, just leave things as is and your C remains as chosen

Want to bank your VC? Simple, just make it known in the weeks match day thread prior to your C playing

As someone who just doesn’t care for loopholing all that much, I don’t really mind this. It at least could make things a little interesting rather than people maybe banking on a “perma-captain” and adds a little bit of a risk vs reward strategy as it could maybe backfire. It also promotes a bit more activity which is always nice considering sometimes coaches aren’t seen until they’re due to post their team the following week.

VC Fyfe scores 140
Purps banks it
Gawn scores 200

VC Gawn scores 68
Purps keeps the C onFyfe
Fyfe scores 50

[RaisyDaisy]

Haha no doubt Purps would still struggle even with this VC implemented haha

[Holz]

VC Fyfe scores 140
Purps banks it
Gawn scores 200

VC Gawn scores 68
Purps keeps the C onFyfe
Fyfe scores 50

Fyfe out injured

VC Gawn for 112

keeps it

Buddy drops 178