Event The S29 Sweet FA Players Assosciation MVP -The beez Trophy

[Barrybran]

Right next to the Gold Coast Suns premiership trophy.

I loved JackBero's diary this season. Very creative stuff.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Just fully catching up after a stupid night last night.

Congrats my man TheInjuryFactory - very well-deserved.



As was third place for Kennedy Parker.

Very proud of having so many Demons in the top 20 too (Harvey Manfrenjensenden, Headless, Proper Gander). Plus Tarks and Callums_Guns knocking on the door.

A great season.

You didn’t tag me because you know I search my own name. Very astute

 

[Kapow!!!]

Top 50 and best Fremantle supporting Royal....suck $#!^ Cesoir and CakeEater

Oh and well done TheInjuryFactory on actually winning. Clearly the best poster of the year...or something, why are we here again?

 

[CakeEater]

Top 50 and best Fremantle supporting Royal....suck $#!^ Cesoir and CakeEater

Oh and well done TheInjuryFactory on actually winning. Clearly the best poster of the year...or something, why are we here again?

Pfft as if i wanted to beat you anyways...

 

[Mooch]

Congrats TheInjuryFactory and well done manangatang in beating daylight in third.

 

[GremioPower]

I don't mind this season's voting system at all. If I have an issue is with the point allocation. Being listed first is 40 times more valuable than being listed 20th. I don't think this is fair.

Being listed should matter way more. The order should be a bonus; like a tiebreaker.

For instance, #1 is worthy 40 points. So, being listed should also be worthy 40 points. This would recognize being voted to be as important as being listed at #1.

Thus, points would be allocated like this:

1 - 80 (40+40)
2 - 77 (40+37)
3 - 75 (40+35)
...
19 - 43 (40+3)
20 - 41 (40+1)

This way, being listed #1 would be almost twice as more valuable than being listed #20, which seems fairer to me.

My 2 cents, anyway.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

I don't mind this season's voting system at all. If I have an issue is with the point allocation. Being listed first is 40 times more valuable than being listed 20th. I don't think this is fair.

Being listed should matter way more. The order should be a bonus; like a tiebreaker.

For instance, #1 is worthy 40 points. So, being listed should also be worthy 40 points. This would recognize being voted to be as important as being listed at #1.

Thus, points would be allocated like this:

1 - 80 (40+40)
2 - 78 (40+38)
3 - 76 (40+36)
...
19 - 42 (40+2)
20 - 41 (40+1)

This way, being listed #1 would be almost twice as more valuable than being listed #20.

My 2 cents, anyway.

The 20th player is 41 points more valuable than the next player you would’ve named?

Personally I think the weighting’s seems about right. I get what you’re saying though.

 

[TheInjuryFactory]

1 TheInjuryFactory 1353 votes. Career total 3399
Match thread posts 968, avg 57

And so, the winner of the S29 beez trophy is Coney Island skipper TheInjuryFactory! It has been a steady march to the top for TIF, finishing 5th in S27, 3rd in S28 and now planting his flag on the summit of the mountain. There has rarely been a more prolific media season by any player, with the highlights being the Three Things I Learnt thread, and the Rolling All-SFA team, as well as leading the Warriors into a more mainstream status within the league. TIF has shown a diversity of posting styles, and a willingness to assist the many people turning to him for graphics help, and it would be a hard man who would begrudge this honour. Please join me in raising your glasses and toasting the S29 beez trophy winner, TheInjuryFactory



Media Highlights
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/imagine.1235697/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/sweet-fa-bushfire-appeal-3-045-79-raised.1234419/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/tif-news-exclusive-bad-news-bombers.1235747/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/tifmedia-presents-sweet-fa-powerlifting.1235506/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...he-week-s29-this-weeks-guest-cactus_.1235554/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/destination-coney-island.1215805/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/qooty-antiques-roadshow-with-theinjuryfactory.1237963/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/zackah-beeg-a-tale-of-two-wazzas.1238430/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/theinjuryfactorys-guide-to-natural-disasters.1237472/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/tif-news-live-bears-break-bread-with-big-boy-bono.1238933/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/shock-and-awwwwwe-sh*t-trouble-in-baghdad.1239273/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/in-memoriam-sweet-fa-remembers.1239499/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/six-degrees-of-mobbs.1239969/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/clarkemedia-presents-things-clarkem-did.1240168/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...ll-sfa-team-ant-bear-decides-edition.1236937/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/theinjuryfactorys-the-season-that-was.1240443/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...nt-this-week-finals-wk-2-s29-edition.1235446/
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/spudqoach™-season-29-end-of-season-reveal-coming-soon.1234839/

Cheers AB. Top show mate





















...but I'm gunna get run out of Coney Island now for officially making us mainstream.

Well done Kennedy Parker, I love you.

Well done manangatang, I love you.

Well done TheInjuryFactory, I love you.

Royals and BC represent.

Seriously could have gone either way.

Loons unlucky but well done all. And well done to my hetero life partner, TiF.

Congratulations to TheInjuryFactory on winning the Season 29 Sweet F.A Players Association - beez Trophy! Well done to manangatang and Kennedy Parker on closing the Top 3 out.

Good job all in the Top 20!

Thank you Hate, brilliant work with the graphics last night

Congrats TIFFY! A well deserved win accolade.

My Captain!

You're my boy Bobby!

Well deserved win TheInjuryFactory , I believe I said a couple season ago that if you didn't win a Beez at some point in time then the award has no credibility so I'm glad we got that ticked off. Really raised the bar this season in producing the sheer quantity of quality posts. Also congratulations to manangatang on following up on last seasons win, would've won in a landslide in any other season such was the quality of your work. Long may it continue!

I remember that write up vividly Cloddo. You spent the entire count eviscerating everyone, yet when you got to me, I don't think anybody has delivered higher praise than you offered me. You're a class act mate.

Well done TIF! Your efforts around this place are certainly and deservedly appreciated!

Tarks

Well done, TheInjuryFactory. Great season.

 

[Kennedy Parker]

I remember that write up vividly Cloddo. You spent the entire count eviscerating everyone, yet when you got to me, I don't think anybody has delivered higher praise than you offered me. You're a class act mate.

Was this last season when I was shitting on every top 20 poster as they come up until the top 5 or my last season as admin where I abandoned the count to go to sleep while trolling everyone in the writeups?

 

[TheInjuryFactory]

Was this last season when I was shitting on every top 20 poster as they come up until the top 5 or my last season as admin where I abandoned the count to go to sleep while trolling everyone in the writeups?

Yeah the one where you completely ****ed it off early to kill some zees.

 

[TheInjuryFactory]

Just fully catching up after a stupid night last night.

Congrats my man TheInjuryFactory - very well-deserved.

You are a gentleman mang.

 

[GremioPower]

The 20th player is 41 points more valuable than the next player you would’ve named?

Mathematically speaking, no. Because #21 gets 0 points either way.

 

[TheInjuryFactory]

Well I knew you’d take this place by storm with your wit, charm and shoop skills! Congrats, and good as mang and KP have been this is your season in all regards and rightfully so

Can we ditch the ******* Ross Lyon now?

Thank you Wosh. Thank **** you made me a Wazza

Oh, and ditch Ross?

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Mathematically speaking, no. Because #21 gets 0 points either way.

But you’re awarding number twenty 41 points. How is what is probably a minute gap worth such a huge margin?

Also mathematically speaking what? In the incumbent voting system the 21st player that would have been named receives 1 point less than the 20th. In your proposed one they receive 41 less. Granted, I get that you could equally say the difference between 20th and last is only 1 point v 41 points but ultimately most posters would only have the patience to bother naming out 20 posters in this kind of exercise. It doesnt mean there’s a substantial enough gap to have such a huge differential to any of the remainder IMO.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

That was an incredibly quick like Kilroy - it appeared immediately as I made the post

 

[GremioPower]

But you’re awarding number twenty 41 points. How is what is probably a minute gap worth such a huge margin?

It doesn't change anything for those not voted. Dividing all the end results by 41, you would see it.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

It doesn't change anything for those not voted. Dividing all the end results by 41, you would see it.

What? It does. The “penalty” for being excluded from the list is 41x greater in your proposal. I’d suggest it would benefit safe, consistent posters that might regularly find their way down the list and punish controversial posters that might be highly rated or not rated at all equally. Regularity of appearance in the list would have an overweight impact.

 

[Kilroy]

That was an incredibly quick like Kilroy - it appeared immediately as I made the post

Following with much amusement. I'm sure this would be resolved much quicker in Portuguese.

 

[Kilroy]

GremioPower you are to be applauded for your initiative and your sense of fair play, but by trying to multiply and divide you are putting a gremlin in the accounting.

Stick to plus and minus and we'll all sleep peacefully tonight.

 

[GremioPower]

GremioPower you are to be applauded for your initiative and your sense of fair play, but by trying to multiply and divide you are putting a gremlin in the accounting.

Stick to plus and minus and we'll all sleep peacefully tonight.

No. I'm trying to avoid it. The division was JUST a way to show Tarkyn_24 that the changing on the point system I proposed does NOT affect people not voted.

Actually, it only affects those voted at 19th and higher. Look:

I. Not Voted
a) current system: 0/1=0
b) proposed system: 0/41=0

II. Voted Once at #20
a) 1/1=1
b) 41/41=1

III. Voted Once at #1:
a) 40/1=40
b) 80/41=1.95

The difference between #20 and #21 is absolutely the same in both systems. The difference between #1 and #20, however, changes from 40 to 1.95.

— How about #11?

I'm glad you asked it. Here:

IV. Voted Once at #11
a) 19/1=19
b) 59/41=1.44

#11 is currently worthy almost half of #1 and 19x more than #20. In the new system, it would be worthy only 1.44 times more than #20, while the difference to #1 would be reduced from roughly 2 times to 1.35.

In other words, the difference between #1 and #11 would be almost similar to that between #11 and #20.

Still, the difference between #20 and #21 would remain the same.

The system itself would simply add the points up. As I have said above:

Thus, points would be allocated like this:

1 - 80 (40+40)
2 - 77 (40+37)
3 - 75 (40+35)
...
19 - 43 (40+3)
20 - 41 (40+1)

No divisions nor multiplications.

Does it make sense now?

----

What? It does. The “penalty” for being excluded from the list is 41x greater in your proposal. I’d suggest it would benefit safe, consistent posters that might regularly find their way down the list and punish controversial posters that might be highly rated or not rated at all equally. Regularity of appearance in the list would have an overweight impact.

If we award 1,000 points for #20; 2,000 for #19; 4,000 for #18; and so on; do you now how much it would change for those not voted? Nothing.

Even though the points would be 1,000x higher, nothing changes for those not voted because 0x1,000=0.

It wouldn't change anything for anyone for that matter, but I wanted to show you that the points awarded for the last place NEVER change the situation of those who were awarded no points.

 

[Kilroy]

No. I'm trying to avoid it. The division was JUST a way to show Tarkyn_24 that the changing on the point system I proposed does NOT affect people not voted.

Actually, it only affects those voted at 19th and higher. Look:

I. Not Voted
a) current system: 0/1=0
b) proposed system: 0/41=0

II. Voted Once at #20
a) 1/1=1
b) 41/41=1

III. Voted Once at #1:
a) 40/1=40
b) 80/41=1.95

The difference between #20 and #21 is absolutely the same in both systems. The difference between #1 and #20, however, changes from 40 to 1.95.

— How about #11?

I'm glad you asked it. Here:

IV. Voted Once at #11
a) 20/1=20
b) 60/41=1.46

#11 is currently worthy half of #1 and 20x more than #20. In the new system, it would be worthy only 1.46 times more than #20, while the difference to #1 would be reduced from 2 times to 1.35.

In other words, the difference between #1 and #11 would be roughly similar to that between #11 and #20.

Still, the difference between #20 and #21 would remain the same.

The system itself would simply add the points up. As I have said above:


No divisions nor multiplications.

Does it make sense now?

Too complicated.

Your first mistake is in saying #20=1. It should equal 2 (no?)

#20=2
#19=4
#18=6
... and so on until ...
#1=40

It seemed you were trying to add value for getting in someone's top 20 at all. That's what Tarkyn_24 was saying about the difference between 20th and 21st on a person's list. You seem to be forgetting #20 are already being given points, and that's adequate as Tarks is arguing.

I can see you meant well tho.

 

[GremioPower]

Too complicated. I'm with Tarkyn_24

It is the same system. I simply proposed one change in the way points are awarded. I suggested adding 40 points equally to every position. That's it. It's just that. Nothing more.

Then, Tarkyn_24 argued that the change would harm the people who were left unvoted. That's incorrect. It doesn't affect #21 at all.

What you call "complicated" is not my proposal. It can't be, otherwise the current system would also be complicated.

The "complicated" thing here is my attempts in explaining why Tarkyn's argument is false. So far, I have been unsuccessfully trying to show him (and you) that.

Increasing the value of the minimum of points awarded for someone who is voted does NOT harm the position of those not voted. It is merely an ILLUSION.

My proposal of going from ONE...

Your first mistake is in going 20=1. It should be 2 should it not?

No. It is, indeed, one. It is written in the OP (bolded):

Posters who were ranked 1 on a list were allocated 40 votes, 2 were allocated 37 and the votes decreased by 2 per rank until the 20th ranked poster is allocated 1 vote.

My proposal of going from ONE to 41 (i.e., to 40+1) doesn't affect anyone left out from any particular list more than they already are. Period. It's a non-issue.

The whole point is to diminish the difference between the worth of the top of the list and that of the bottom. The whole point is to increase the value of being voted by many against that of being listed high by a single voter.

Should 2 #20 be more valuable than 1 #1? I don't know. I believe it should, but it doesn't need to be.

However, 39 #20 votes should NOT worth less than 1 #1 vote as it is currently the case. That's the actual discussion.

 

[Kilroy]

It is the same system. I simply proposed one change in the way points are awarded. I suggested adding 40 points equally to every position. That's it. It's just that. Nothing more.

Then, Tarkyn_24 argued that the change would harm the people who were left unvoted. That's incorrect. It doesn't affect #21 at all.

What you call "complicated" is not my proposal. It can't be, otherwise the current system would also be complicated.

The "complicated" thing here is my attempts in explaining why Tarkyn's argument is false. So far, I have been unsuccessfully trying to show him (and you) that.

Increasing the value of the minimum of points awarded for someone who is voted does NOT harm the position of those not voted. It is merely an ILLUSION.

My proposal of going from ONE...


No. It is, indeed, one. It is written in the OP (bolded):

My proposal of going from ONE to 41 (i.e., to 40+1) doesn't affect anyone left out from any particular list more than they already are. Period. It's a non-issue.

The whole point is to diminish the difference between the worth of the top of the list and that of the bottom. The whole point is to increase the value of being voted by many against that of being listed high by a single voter.

Should 2 #20 be more valuable than 1 #1? I don't know. I believe it should, but it doesn't need to be.

However, 39 #20 votes should NOT worth less than 1 #1 vote as it is currently the case. That's the actual discussion.

Ok. I can see why you're a lawyer now.

But ...... a person who gets one more nomination (at the same level) than the person above them (every other time) wins - no?

And if so would you want that?

 

[GremioPower]

But ...... a person who gets one more nomination (at the same level) than the person above them (every other time) wins - no?

And if so would you want that?

There are 60 voters. I would need to check the full effects. Still, someone voted by 30 people, but all at #1, would finish below another voted by all 60 people at #20.

Well, in the example, there were half of the voters that didn't value the former as a top-20 player, while every single voter thought that of the latter. I believe the outcome is at least fairer than what we have now (2 #5 votes > 60 #20 votes).

The idea is to promote being voted, with the order being secondary. Currently, it is the other way around.


---
My proposal basically makes #20 and #19 having a similar value to current #10; #18 and #17 to current #9; #16 and #15 to current #8; and so on.

 

[GremioPower]

Kilroy, I have found my mistake. It is at #2. It is worth 37 points; not, 38. Then, it goes down by 2 up to #20. It doesn't change much, but I am adjusting my posts accordingly when necessary.