Resource Season 40 Posting Stats

[Raz]

There’s no easy answer as it’s all subjective, but it probably at least shows some kind of engagement level.

Overall trends and specific team fluctuations are all up for interpretation

Well good for interaction

 

[Raz]

Mm one of my fav sandwiches

Love spam

 

[Raz]

One day i will return to my first season efforts of interaction.

Had a quiet last 2 seasons

 

[Raz]

hmm I hate end of season

No interactions

Come on baby light my fire

 

[ClarkeM]

Number of posters that posted every match = 94
Number of posters that never posted this season = 93

176 posters posted in at least 8 match threads.
176 posters posed in no more than 7 match threads.

The Furies have 28 posters on their list over the course of the season.
14 of the posters never posted in a match thread. For those not good at math, that's half.

The Roys had 24 posters on their list over the course of the season.
10 of the posters never posted in a match thread. For those not good at math, that's not half.

On average, each club has 7 posters that are not active (0 posts for the season).

And yet squad sizes remain at 30 for what purpose??

If ever there was more of a proof that the league is dying, here you have it folks. This is what's acceptable in Season 40, the milestone season. **** this is bleak...

 

[GreyCrow]

If ever there was more of a proof that the league is dying, here you have it folks. This is what's acceptable in Season 40, the milestone season. **** this is bleak...

Can you expand on this some more

What do you mean by acceptable ?

 

[ClarkeM]

Can you expand on this some more

What do you mean by acceptable ?

Well no one is really seeming to care and we're all just pretending like everything is fine.

 

[ClarkeM]

Kilroy might have some fun with this, go on then

 

[GreyCrow]

Well no one is really seeming to care and we're all just pretending like everything is fine.

Ahh just Jabbering

 

[Jabba73]

Ahh just Jabbering

What’d I do this time?

 

[Kilroy]

Can you expand on this some more

What do you mean by acceptable ?

I think he means glass half-empty.

 

[Millky95]

And yet squad sizes remain at 30 for what purpose??

Coverage to play a team if someone gets banned/leaves or otherwise can't play

 

[ClarkeM]

Coverage to play a team if someone gets banned/leaves or otherwise can't play

Do we really need 10 contingencies on each and every list?

Wouldn't a list cap of maximum 25 suffice? There's up to 65 deadweight posters removed from lists immediately.

 

[Tonga Bob]

Coverage to play a team if someone gets banned/leaves or otherwise can't play

Plus some clubs have had close to 30 people post in match threads last season, with others who didn't post but were active in team threads/PM's.

Apologies for going into Kilroy or Tigerturbulance territory here, but here's the team activity based on people who posted in a match thread:

Team	People​	Posted​	Didn't Post​	% Posted​
BOM	30​	27​	3​	90%​
CIW	31*​	28​	3​	90%​
DRA	24​	18​	6​	75%​
ESH	25​	18​	7​	72%​
FUR	28​	14​	14​	50%​
GCR	30​	23​	7​	77%​
GUM	30​	18​	12​	60%​
LVB	29​	22​	7​	76%​
MBD	27​	25​	2​	93%​
OOB	25​	20​	5​	80%​
ROY	24​	14​	10​	58%​
SCS	26​	16​	10​	62%​
WON	25​	19​	6​	76%​
Average	27.23​	20.15​	7.08​	74%​

*before anyone has a crack, CIW started the season with 30 people then had one returning person & one delisting mid-season, therefore had 31 overall listed people over the course of the season

 

[Millky95]

Do we really need 10 contingencies on each and every list?

Wouldn't a list cap of maximum 25 suffice? There's up to 65 deadweight posters removed from lists immediately.

Probably not but alternatively, is it hurting anyone? Caps only realistically matter if teams are having that many active posters and can't fit them in

 

[Millky95]

Plus some clubs have had close to 30 people post in match threads last season, with others who didn't post but were active in team threads/PM's.

Apologies for going into Kilroy or Tigerturbulance territory here, but here's the team activity based on people who posted in a match thread:

Team	People​	Posted​	Didn't Post​	% Posted​
BOM	30​	27​	3​	90%​
CIW	31*​	28​	3​	90%​
DRA	24​	18​	6​	75%​
ESH	25​	18​	7​	72%​
FUR	28​	14​	14​	50%​
GCR	30​	23​	7​	77%​
GUM	30​	18​	12​	60%​
LVB	29​	22​	7​	76%​
MBD	27​	25​	2​	93%​
OOB	25​	20​	5​	80%​
ROY	24​	14​	10​	58%​
SCS	26​	16​	10​	62%​
WON	25​	19​	6​	76%​
Average	27.23​	20.15​	7.08​	74%​

*before anyone has a crack, CIW started the season with 30 people then had one returning person & one delisting mid-season, therefore had 31 overall listed people over the course of the season

Cool so dropping to 25 would only cause 5 players that post to leave their club and I suspect those 5 players would combine for less than 40 posts for the year in reality

 

[ClarkeM]

Cool so dropping to 25 would only cause 5 players that post to leave their club and I suspect those 5 players would combine for less than 40 posts for the year in reality

Hard disagree, perhaps let's look at maybe why people might not be as engaged with posting if they're not even getting a game in the first place.

Lower list sizes. Gets rid of this deadweight and it encourages a more healthy player movement rather than clubs just pocketing players and leaving them on their lists for years.

 

[Kilroy]

Apologies for going into Kilroy or Tigerturbulance territory here, but here's the team activity based on people who posted in a match thread:

Don’t apologise. Drill deeper if you want.

It’s all based on your work anyway

 

[Tonga Bob]

Cool so dropping to 25 would only cause 5 players that post to leave their club and I suspect those 5 players would combine for less than 40 posts for the year in reality

Couple of things here:

• The active clubs have that many people posting because they enjoy posting with each other,
• Cutting people from clubs may make them leave altogether, so you'd be forcing them out to make weaker clubs look better

 

[Tonga Bob]

Hard disagree, perhaps let's look at maybe why people might not be as engaged with posting if they're not even getting a game in the first place.

Lower list sizes. Gets rid of this deadweight and it encourages a more healthy player movement rather than clubs just pocketing players and leaving them on their lists for years.

Alternatively you could look at why some clubs aren't as active. Our main growth this season came from getting inactive & former players active again, rather than getting people from other clubs. If lists were cut we wouldn't have had that opportunity.

 

[Millky95]

Hard disagree, perhaps let's look at maybe why people might not be as engaged with posting if they're not even getting a game in the first place.

Lower list sizes. Gets rid of this deadweight and it encourages a more healthy player movement rather than clubs just pocketing players and leaving them on their lists for years.

I don't know if that would have the effect you are after. Cool, inactives 1, 3 and 7 are cut from my playing list and that impacts my enjoyment, posting, position in the side how? The sim has a minimum required of 20. If sim glory is what you are after you'd move soon as you were player 21 let alone 27 or 28. If you are after a fun posting unit each week, being player 22 in the sim might not matter because you have at least 21 others you can post alongside each week

Couple of things here:

• The active clubs have that many people posting because they enjoy posting with each other,
• Cutting people from clubs may make them leave altogether, so you'd be forcing them out to make weaker clubs look better

Couldn't agree more

Alternatively you could look at why some clubs aren't as active. Our main growth this season came from getting inactive & former players active again, rather than getting people from other clubs. If lists were cut we wouldn't have had that opportunity.

Rookies are and always have been the future of the league. It would be remiss for any administration or club to miss out on opportunities for rookie recruitment. You could expand that to former players as well but that's a much shallower pool, imo

 

[ClarkeM]

Alternatively you could look at why some clubs aren't as active. Our main growth this season came from getting inactive & former players active again, rather than getting people from other clubs. If lists were cut we wouldn't have had that opportunity.

Yes and no.

I think it's a great thing getting those players active and it's been good for your club.

But through enabling this, all you're doing is taking the opportunity away, indirectly might I add, from other clubs to recruit these posters and in turn hoarding them on the inactive playing lists. Sure it's great for your club, but it's not great for other clubs looking to build back up.

Only 2/13 clubs had more than 25 posters post this season.

 

[GreyCrow]

Well no one is really seeming to care and we're all just pretending like everything is fine.

But what is acceptable in your estimation

 

[ClarkeM]

But what is acceptable in your estimation

With regards to what exactly?

 

[Tonga Bob]

Yes and no.

I think it's a great thing getting those players active and it's been good for your club.

But through enabling this, all you're doing is taking the opportunity away, indirectly might I add, from other clubs to recruit these posters and in turn hoarding them on the inactive playing lists. Sure it's great for your club, but it's not great for other clubs looking to build back up.

The only reason they are active again is because of history with the club and through relationships with other people at the club, otherwise they would remain inactive or retired. So no, we haven't taken any opportunities from other clubs. In fact what's stopping other clubs from doing the same thing with their inactive listed people?

Only 2/13 clubs had more than 25 posters post this season.

And good on them. Maybe ask why they have that many, and then replicate that at other clubs. But really as Millky95 said, what's the harm?