Gents, the CO has authorized me to conduct a poll about a proposed rule change in GIG. This rule change WILL (*) take effect next season for sure, but there is some concern that a rule change mid-season would rock the boat a bit. Therefore, we're proposing this poll.
For clarity, here's the gist: Several owners (3 currently) have missed just one round (out of 7) this season. Missing even just one round can be enough to cause some owners to call it quits for the season. And sometimes missing a round was simply out of your control (vacations, internet issues, and of course, my own error - just this past round - forgetting to post an email when I put up the questions).
So the rule would be this: "Should a participant miss ONE round in GIG, he will be afforded points equal to the lowest point total from others players in that round. Only one missed round will be allowed. If future rounds are missed, no points will be awarded."
Please vote within the next 4 days. We have decided to require a quorum of 50% (10 votes at least), and a 67% approval rate to change the vote this season, mid-year.
Edit: (*) denotes pending discussion that has resulted below - read on...
Pass the new rule
I voted to support this change but I actually prefer an alternate version of this revision. Perhaps each owner could toss out their lowest score. I have one week where I would have been better off not voting than voting. :)
I was thinking something similar but support the original.
I vote for the rule change implemented by this year.
Robots vote in favor of the proposed rule change.
bob h
I just missed a second round so you can remove me from the 3, ha! Things have been nuts but should be back for the next round.
I disagreed as I think if a miss occurs they should get the average of that weeks responses. OR even better like was already pointed out allow each owner to throw out their lowest total. A miss won't cripple someone and all folks will actually be treated equally.
We considered that, but if you put yourself in the shoes of someone who DID take the time to answer the questions, but got a lower than average score, do you think it's "fair" to give someone who didn't participate MORE points than that guy?
Two submitted ballots last period got 0 points. So in that case just giving them 0 for the week for missing would have been the same as lowest score option. This fix would have not fixed anything then. Drop the lowest score to me seems best.
While it's certainly possible to score a 0, the lowest score of a participant in Round 6 was me, 7 points.
To avoid further confusion, I've edited the spreadsheet by putting a dash (-) in the box (instead of a 0) if the person didn't submit answers in time. And I'll color the missed round's "lowest score" blue to reflect that an owner missed that week, and received the lowest point score.
The argument to scratch the lowest score from all participants has been noted, and we'll address that this off-season. For this season, it appears the new rule proposal will pass for this season unless the tides turn with the few remaining expected votes.
Where this gets messy is we’ve had negative points on questions in the past as well. So it’s potentially possible to score something lower than 0 for a week.
Lowest score by round this year: 6, 4, 2, 6, 8, 7. And the 2 happened in R3, the lowest total points (combined) for any of the 7 rounds. We've moved away from negative points in the last couple years.
Average score by round this year (roughly - not precise to the decimal): 10, 7, 6, 11, 12, 10. I don't think you deserve to get 10 points if you miss a round. That means you'd basically receive better than half the scores for not even playing.
I like the idea of throwing out the worst score, but I see a flaw. The wrench it throws is that a guy could be leading GIG all the way through R12, let's say by 5 points. Then we have the playoff GIG and WS GIG, and *then* - at the end of it all - what if the 1st place guy's lowest score was like a 9, but the 2nd place team's low score was a 2? And low and behold, we take the low scores out and the 2nd place guy wins. That seems problematic to me. Maybe I'm missing something?
If you take a look at the scores through Round 6, let's just play out a scenario. Let's pretend Bob isn't in 1st place, and it's Brendt in first, followed by me in 2nd. We're one point apart. Brendt's lowest score is 7, so take it out. My lowest score is 5, take that out. Now I'm up by one. I win. Fair?