Discussion Injurie’s/Suspens’ion Feature of the S’im and it's Place in the S’weet FA

[Mobbs]

We’ve had the trial season and it was rightfully scrapped.

Wrongfully scrapped. Discussions show a majority support. Loud nuffies got their way.

 

[StFly]

Wrongfully scrapped. Discussions show a majority support. Loud nuffies got their way.

Been engaged in what, 4 seasons out of 27 thus far? Not exactly a majority support for the feature by the communities. Regardless, shifted goal posts in that trial season was queried when it actually occurred and we largely refused to continue using it at the time for a variety of reasons trending to exclusion.

Maybe people should be focusing on limiting "negative" aspects of the feature and "worst case" scenarios instead of rallying against opposition to an idea?

 

[Far Kern]

Been engaged in what, 4 seasons out of 27 thus far? Not exactly a majority support for the feature by the communities. Regardless, shifted goal posts in that trial season was queried when it actually occurred and we largely refused to continue using it at the time for a variety of reasons trending to exclusion.

Maybe people should be focusing on limiting "negative" aspects of the feature and "worst case" scenarios instead of rallying against opposition to an idea?

So if I was to support the idea at this stage it would have to be extremely rare, limited to one week just once or twice a year, and it would have to be opt in.

 

[Far Kern]

So if I was to support the idea at this stage it would have to be extremely rare, limited to one week just once or twice a year, and it would have to be opt in.

Oh, and I do like the suggestion that a person that incurs a penalty for other reasons is forcibly opted in.

 

[AceAndy]

So if I was to support the idea at this stage it would have to be extremely rare, limited to one week just once or twice a year, and it would have to be opt in.

I couldnt imagine many would opt in.

 

[Far Kern]

I couldnt imagine many would opt in.

I don’t know. If the pool ended up large enough I would. But it wouldn’t work with a small pool.

 

[Mobbs]

Been engaged in what, 4 seasons out of 27 thus far? Not exactly a majority support for the feature by the communities. Regardless, shifted goal posts in that trial season was queried when it actually occurred and we largely refused to continue using it at the time for a variety of reasons trending to exclusion.

Maybe people should be focusing on limiting "negative" aspects of the feature and "worst case" scenarios instead of rallying against opposition to an idea?

Actual majority support, meaning actual votes and actual tallying. From memory there were 2 against from whatever number voted which was every club at the time and possibly the Admin also voted. Might have been 1 or 2 abstains. At lowest a 2:1 ratio for.

Your second sentence is full of like quadruple negatives and is rife with burden inversion. Rallying against opposition to an idea is a deceptive way of saying supporting an idea.

My reference to standing out of the squad list for a season but continuing to LEAD involvement for my club is a massive bonk on the head of detractors that won't go away no matter how much you beg it to. You know you would cry yourself to sleep every night if this was your scenario.

 

[Far Kern]

Actual majority support, meaning actual votes and actual tallying. From memory there were 2 against from whatever number voted which was every club at the time and possibly the Admin also voted. Might have been 1 or 2 abstains. At lowest a 2:1 ratio for.

Your second sentence is full of like quadruple negatives and is rife with burden inversion. Rallying against opposition to an idea is a deceptive way of saying supporting an idea.

My reference to standing out of the squad list for a season but continuing to LEAD involvement for my club is a massive bonk on the head of detractors that won't go away no matter how much you beg it to. You know you would cry yourself to sleep every night if this was your scenario.

I took that post as supportive of constructive debate.

It was a test of my powers of logic to get there though, and there were enough hidden negatives that I might well have no idea.

 

[Mobbs]

I took that post as supportive of constructive debate.

It was a test of my powers of logic to get there though, and there were enough hidden negatives that I might well have no idea.

We were StFlying StFly Wordlines

 

[StFly]

I took that post as supportive of constructive debate.

It was a test of my powers of logic to get there though, and there were enough hidden negatives that I might well have no idea.

Correct on first point.

Your second sentence is full of like quadruple negatives and is rife with burden inversion. Rallying against opposition to an idea is a deceptive way of saying supporting an idea.

It's perception bias, although TBF in this thread is more support against the feature, whilst the supporters for are slightly more vocal.

So if I was to support the idea at this stage it would have to be extremely rare, limited to one week just once or twice a year, and it would have to be opt in.

If realism is desired though you can't really have an opt in situation, and it would then also create extra work if people were allowed to opt out if opinions changed if you did. You'd also probably need a census to then also see if you have enough individuals to run an opt in system and since when have lists ever worked in this forum like they are supposed to?

 

[Yakker]

Shhhhhh let's try and lure out the loonies...

Who the * doesn’t think it’s a great idea? I mean, how good would it be as a newb in the league to all of a sudden be told to sit out a few weeks. Or better still how’s this scenario, DemonJim is killing it making 15 tackles a week and with 145 DT points average in the first 10 rounds then he has a brain snap and coathangers The Half Back which results in a 3 games suspension and he ends up as a runner up to NaturalDisaster who eventually goes on to win the Mobbs

You can’t make this s**t up!!!

 

[Far Kern]

Who the fu** doesn’t think it’s a great idea? I mean, how good would it be as a newb in the league to all of a sudden be told to sit out a few weeks. Or better still how’s this scenario, DemonJim is killing it making 15 tackles a week and with 145 DT points average in the first 10 rounds then he has a brain snap and coathangers The Half Back which results in a 3 games suspension and he ends up as a runner up to NaturalDisaster who eventually goes on to win the Mobbs

You can’t make this s**t up!!!

Catch up with the whole argument. Let’s keep it moving forward. What if my most recent posts?

 

[Far Kern]

Correct on first point.



It's perception bias, although TBF in this thread is more support against the feature, whilst the supporters for are slightly more vocal.



If realism is desired though you can't really have an opt in situation, and it would then also create extra work if people were allowed to opt out if opinions changed if you did. You'd also probably need a census to then also see if you have enough individuals to run an opt in system and since when have lists ever worked in this forum like they are supposed to?

I’m just trying to discuss stuff.

It wouldn’t be hard to find out who might opt in and see if it was viable. It wouldn’t cost a thing.

 

[JoshWoodenSpoon]

Who the fu** doesn’t think it’s a great idea? I mean, how good would it be as a newb in the league to all of a sudden be told to sit out a few weeks. Or better still how’s this scenario, DemonJim is killing it making 15 tackles a week and with 145 DT points average in the first 10 rounds then he has a brain snap and coathangers The Half Back which results in a 3 games suspension and he ends up as a runner up to NaturalDisaster who eventually goes on to win the Mobbs

You can’t make this s**t up!!!

All sounds swell to me. If it is meant to be one, the ‘losing the Mobbs’ argument has to be one of the worst. No-one deserves the Mobbs Medal. It just bloody happens. You’re more likely to get benched in consecutive weeks than you are to be injured, but for some reason one is routine and the other is apparently mortifying. I would wet myself with glee if I or anyone was cost the Mobbs in the final round because they split the webbing between their third and fourth finger on their left hand. If it was Doctor Gero I’d probably marry Mobbs.



(assumed sarcasm in yer post, though not sure as you typically like the chaotic stuff here)

 

[Mobbs]

Correct on first point.



It's perception bias, although TBF in this thread is more support against the feature, whilst the supporters for are slightly more vocal.



If realism is desired though you can't really have an opt in situation, and it would then also create extra work if people were allowed to opt out if opinions changed if you did. You'd also probably need a census to then also see if you have enough individuals to run an opt in system and since when have lists ever worked in this forum like they are supposed to?

My perception is that shut up. It's biased by seriously tho, shut up. But yes I understand that most people are against the feature now. But consider the source. Just look at these people. I've already shown clearly that 1) the first approx 3 rounds are not included, yet in a minute we'll see some random Demon who I'm glad will never get to be captain blather on disregarding this, and earlier we saw Dingster blather on about finals, again disregarding how finals are also precluded. I'm not louder, it just looks that way because the deceitfulness of the converse arguments partly nullifies them.

It is true that opt-in denies realism, and does create extra work. I was a little tongue-in-cheek about opt-in. The whole concept of I&S is based on adding more immersive realism. Nobody could deny that conceiving of such a thing as opt-in would actually be less realistic than going to whole gamut of player stocks.

Nevermind, let me just hold Yakker 's beer for a minute.

Who the fu** doesn’t think it’s a great idea? I mean, how good would it be as a newb in the league to all of a sudden be told to sit out a few weeks. Or better still how’s this scenario, DemonJim is killing it making 15 tackles a week and with 145 DT points average in the first 10 rounds then he has a brain snap and coathangers The Half Back which results in a 3 games suspension and he ends up as a runner up to NaturalDisaster who eventually goes on to win the Mobbs

You can’t make this s**t up!!!

Of course! Why would you need to make this s**t up when 'this s**t' is better replicating real life?

I am flabbergasted the general populace are even permitted to give an opinion. In fact anyone who doesn't ask to be demoted from their position when they have, say, 3 poor weeks in a row regardless "activity" needs to leave the thread.

 

[ClarkeM]

Wrongfully scrapped. Discussions show a majority support. Loud nuffies got their way.

Feedback results don't lie.
After the trial season, Injuries and Suspensions had this response from the Sweet FA.
4 for
19 against

Pretty simple.

 

[Mobbs]

Feedback results don't lie.
After the trial season, Injuries and Suspensions had this response from the Sweet FA.
4 for
19 against

Pretty simple.

Sample of 23 from ? Nature of likely respondents?
Akin to polling what percentage will respond to a question by asking "will you respond to this question."
In the captains poll a full 100% sample was requested. That's actually data.
Indeed you are.

 

[ClarkeM]

Sample of 23 from ? Nature of likely respondents?
Akin to polling what percentage will respond to a question by asking "will you respond to this question."
In the captains poll a full 100% sample was requested. That's actually data.
Indeed you are.

Present it. Message the captains from Season 14 and collect the data and present it.

 

[Mobbs]

Present it. Message the captains from Season 14 and collect the data and present it.

I have access to the data right now but am prevented by a recent Committee decision from supplying it

 

[Mobbs]

Present it. Message the captains from Season 14 and collect the data and present it.

Nevermind. I can offer the following without breaching the transparency ruling. Apologies, I thought I read 4 to 2 originally, not 4 to 3:
For (4): Roys, Furies, Bombers, Hawks
Against (3): Wonders, Dragons, Demons
Notes:
- seems Gumbies abstained
- the Hawks for vote and the Wonders against vote each have some form of qualifier that I don't understand.
- another count earlier showed a 5 to 4 result respectively.
- later on in the season a further review agreed on ditching the system

 

[ClarkeM]

Nevermind. I can offer the following without breaching the transparency ruling. Apologies, I thought I read 4 to 2 originally, not 4 to 3:
For (4): Roys, Furies, Bombers, Hawks
Against (3): Wonders, Dragons, Demons
Notes:
- seems Gumbies abstained
- the Hawks for vote and the Wonders against vote each have some form of qualifier that I don't understand.
- another count earlier showed a 5 to 4 result respectively.
- later on in the season a further review agreed on ditching the system

Well that conclusively tells you that after the trial season that it was not a success.

 

[Far Kern]

All sounds swell to me. If it is meant to be one, the ‘losing the Mobbs’ argument has to be one of the worst. No-one deserves the Mobbs Medal. It just bloody happens. You’re more likely to get benched in consecutive weeks than you are to be injured, but for some reason one is routine and the other is apparently mortifying. I would wet myself with glee if I or anyone was cost the Mobbs in the final round because they split the webbing between their third and fourth finger on their left hand. If it was Doctor Gero I’d probably marry Mobbs.



(assumed sarcasm in yer post, though not sure as you typically like the chaotic stuff here)

I’d probably phrase this differently but couldn’t agree more.

If it cost someone a stats medal what they might consider is being in line for being a good poster.

 

[Mobbs]

Well that conclusively tells you that after the trial season that it was not a success.

It tells me that the wrong people are in the league,

 

[JoshWoodenSpoon]

I’d probably phrase this differently but couldn’t agree more.

You wouldn’t wet yourself??

 

[ClarkeM]

It tells me that the wrong people are in the league,

The people are the league.