Post by Charles Barkley on Apr 9, 2014 4:05:23 GMT
Hey Charles, I think the volume of potential changes is too great for the current ad hoc system. I would wager that Ian could easily spend all of his time working the issue. Are the actual ratings that the game comes out with every year that far off based on the year before?
A committee wouldn't help to make this back log go away, but it would make it so that it doesn't happen again in the future. If we had a committee of 8 members and these members can ask for a decrease of up to 2 players every 2 weeks, roughly up to 4 a month. Then up to 32 players can be decreased each month. This doesn't help solve the problem right now, it only helps to stop it from happening again in the future.
The main problem, as I see it, is no one wants to decrease their own players and putting decreases in for others can seem like a "dick move" but a committee of GM's to decrease the players means there's a committee of guys who have to be the bad guy when a player nneds decreased. It would still work the same, guys go up for a decrease and they are voted upon, there just wouldn't be a log jam of players that could possibly be overrated. Ian could potentially be responsible for slamming the nerf hammer on to guys, but it would take up a lot of his time and all that power in one place can lead to bad things (not saying he would abuse it, but there is that potential if there is just one voice on the nerf hammer).
So you have a committee of 8 GMs that can put up the decrease threads for up to 16 Players every two weeks. There could even be an internal vote within the committee to put the player up for a decrease. Then, if that vote passes, the player decrease thread is created and we vote. This would also establish a time when people know their are possible decreases up that need voted on. That probably isn't the best idea in the world, but its just what I thought up in the past hour or so. I chose eight because it represents greater than 25% of the GMs.