NAF Logo
leftstar Mar 28, 2024 - 08:11 PM
capleft
spacer
NAF World Headquarters
home forum rankings tourneys nyleague faq
Toot Toot rightstar
capright

Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
GrumbledookOffline
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: NAF World Cup 2015 Q&A thread  PostPosted: Nov 04, 2013 - 08:29 AM



Joined: Feb 10, 2003

Posts: 922

Status: Offline
      Gaixo wrote:
Has any thought been given to introducing tiers to encourage more diversity in team type? Or would that be considered counter to the intent of the tournament?


I would like that, same with Eurobowl / Europen and NAFC as well. I know there are those who opposed to this, so hopefully wider community discussion and input will take place.

_________________
'Boomshanker an Interception'

Jon
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
PakoOffline
Post subject: RE: Re: NAF World Cup 2015 Q&A thread  PostPosted: Nov 06, 2013 - 07:48 AM



Joined: Jul 15, 2005
Spain
Posts: 471
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
This is not precisely a question but a suggestion.

Did you consider to establish an "a priori" ranking document in which candidate venues could be objectively evaluated?

Starting from n number of candidate venues, NAF could apply an objective merits scale to reduce candidates to two finalists, that could be evaluated in other terms difficult to evaluate objectively.

Setting up different categories, and relative benefits and merits from the selected comitee, and being published BEFORE the venue bid, NAF would assure the fairest way to select WC venue (i.e. in terms of reducing subjective valorization).

As an incomplete example:

      Quote:
1.VENUE

1.1 Modernity of facilities: Built before 2000 (5 pts), Built 2001-2005 (10 pts), Built 2006-2010 (15 pts), Built 2011+ (20 pts)
1.2 Capacity: Up to 200 (1 pt), 201-300 (5pts), 301-500 (10 pts), 501-700 (20 pts), 701+ (25 pts)
1.3 Commodities: Bar (+15 pts), Nursery (+5 pts)
1.4 ...

2. HOSTING

2.1 Accomodation: Not Provided (0 pts), Agreement with local Hotels (75-150 €/night) (5 pts), Agreement with local Hotels (25-150 €/night) (10 pts), Free accomodation (20 pts).
2.2 Meals: Not provided (0 pts), Cold Catering (5 pts), Warm Catering (10 pts), Local Restaurants Accomodation (15 pts), Dinner Included (+10 pts)
2.3 Transport: Venue 20 km from Hotel (5 pts), Venue 10 km from Hotel (10 pts), Venue Less than 5 km from Hotel (20 pts) Venue and Accomodation in the same place (40 pts).
2.4 ...

3. ...


This would improve WC selection in different ways:

a) Reducing pressure over the selection comitee (they will work in the pre-bidding process, setting up the document)
b) Reducing human effort in upcoming editions (in terms of precisely evaluating each bid)
c) Increase transparency (bid could be public, comitee could be public as well)
d) Reducing candidates possible concerns about decissions made
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
LucyOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 06, 2013 - 09:28 AM



Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 459

Status: Offline
Why does a facility get bonus points for being build in the recent past?

I think even a list like this would provoke lots of discussion. I don't actually agree with point 2 as well. We had deals with hotels, but nobody used them.
So, this could mean that a city with excellent cheap options but no deal would get no points, but a city with few options but an expensive deal they have with a hotel would get bonus points.....

I would not recommend a list like this...... I think.

Lucy
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
PakoOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 07, 2013 - 01:55 AM



Joined: Jul 15, 2005
Spain
Posts: 471
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Dear Lucy,

As it was an example, I found quite useless to analyze it into detail.

The idea is that:

- Pick 30 (or whatever number) people. (Ideally, let players decide who could be the best representants)
- Let them decide an "a priori" ranking document
- Publish ranking, publish comitee composition
- Rank bids following a consensus document (We could assume it would be far more improved than couple examples I listed in 5 min.)
- Pick two finalists as possible NAF WC venue

Cannot imagine how an objective process could be critisized as much as using a secret comitee that doesn't need to argument their decission, just pick up the most amusing option in their opinion, that would never be known (their identities) and that is subjected to president's also subjective opinion of who is the best person to decide. As an example, I was NOT asked to participate in this decission, even being voted by a respectable number of NAF members. Guess I could be a fair option to include all these people opinions, as Lycos is representing in other way.

Don't really get this. Honestly.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
LokiOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 07, 2013 - 03:14 AM



Joined: Feb 17, 2003
England
Posts: 58
Location: England
Status: Offline
      Pako wrote:


Cannot imagine how an objective process could be critisized as much as using a secret comitee that doesn't need to argument their decission, just pick up the most amusing option in their opinion, that would never be known (their identities) and that is subjected to president's also subjective opinion of who is the best person to decide. As an example, I was NOT asked to participate in this decission, even being voted by a respectable number of NAF members. Guess I could be a fair option to include all these people opinions, as Lycos is representing in other way.

Don't really get this. Honestly.


Some members of the Bloodbowl community do not seem able to avoid becoming overemotional in their dealings with the rest of the community. Rather than looking at the 'secret committee' as some conspiracy or personality cult you need to also factor in that anonymity allows the people involved to make a decision free of fear of being harassed by a vocal minority.

Your description of the process above seems quite close to a bidding process that would be used for standard commercial or business practices. Normally the people involved in a process like this have some level of compensation for their work and are unlikely to have to face the bidders in a personal arena where they may be asked 'so did you vote for or against my proposal?'. I for one am not involved in any way currently. In the future I would happily have my name published and ‘work for free’ in the bids process but not all would.

_________________
Time flies like an arrow,
Fruit flies like a banana.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
PakoOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 07, 2013 - 08:25 AM



Joined: Jul 15, 2005
Spain
Posts: 471
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Precisely I guess this is one of the points stressed from my topics:

To avoid the necessity of keep a comitee identities secret to save them from critisizing.

Once you set up an objective ranking, which is barely independent of personal management (of comitee), you are indeed eliminating the pressure over this comitee.

Would be difficult to set up this document, but this is a work that is needed to do just once. And so many NAF collaborators are happy to invest time in to promote changes.

What I find our quite perturbing is to be involved personally in terms of "overemotional" or "conspiracy". I guess most of decent people (no matter their particular thoughts about NAF) would agree that as more public, transparent and objective a process is, the better is indeed. And this is truly from governments to clubs, including NAF.

Don't really get the point to be accused time by time to distrust NAF to ask for things that are merely rights out of discussion in ANY other part of a human being life.

You're free to not be interested in such matters, as you shouldn't be interested in how much UK invests in research, for example. But to be rude with others that would make things different is not only not fair, but quite offensive, sir.

This was previously pointed out so many times, I only presented an idea in a constructive, polite way to be considered because I truly thing it could reduce pressure from venue comitee and potential arguments from discarded venues.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
LokiOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 07, 2013 - 09:48 AM



Joined: Feb 17, 2003
England
Posts: 58
Location: England
Status: Offline
      Pako wrote:

What I find our quite perturbing is to be involved personally in terms of "overemotional" or "conspiracy". I guess most of decent people (no matter their particular thoughts about NAF) would agree that as more public, transparent and objective a process is, the better is indeed. And this is truly from governments to clubs, including NAF.
.


I did not accuse you of being "overemotional" you have taken upon yourself to suggest that and it is the words and phrases that you used that prompted me to use the phase "conspriacy" as this what your posts seem to suggest that there is some unspoken agend to do something by a group - which is by its definition a conspiracy.

I don't know if it is a translation issue or not but you seem to have taken general statements very personally while in your own postings make what would seem to be personal attacks on both specific NAF members and the NAF in general, 'sir'.

_________________
Time flies like an arrow,
Fruit flies like a banana.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
OventaOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 07, 2013 - 10:04 AM



Joined: Nov 20, 2007
Undisclosed
Posts: 107
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
Hi pako,
I understand your wish for more transparency and openness.
I personallzy also don't think it would be needed to hide identities, as I think noone should have a problem with that.
I think it would be sufficient if just the vote would be secret.

But tackling your request with a list of objective criteria will not work to solve this from my perspective.
The sites will be so unique and so different that it will never fit into such a scheme.
And to check if a site has taken care of the obvious ( place, food, accommodation) does not require a complex catalog.
It would be a waste of energy from my perspective.
Hence I also don't see much value in your specific proposal.

Cheers
Oventa
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
beasoOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 10, 2013 - 06:24 PM



Joined: Mar 24, 2010

Posts: 12

Status: Offline
I think the panel should be named but not their votes.

However they should not be named until after the decision has been made to prevent any FIFA style corruption so to speak!!!!!

This organisation has had enough problems recently so some degree of transparency to show that this has been done properly is needed.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
rmilsomOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 22, 2013 - 12:37 PM



Joined: Oct 31, 2011

Posts: 4

Status: Offline
      beaso wrote:
I think the panel should be named but not their votes.

However they should not be named until after the decision has been made to prevent any FIFA style corruption so to speak!!!!!

This organisation has had enough problems recently so some degree of transparency to show that this has been done properly is needed.



I don't see why the panels votes shouldn't be included, the more transparency the better, I cant see the logic in that.

I agree with everything else you said though.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
torielOffline
Post subject:   PostPosted: Nov 23, 2013 - 09:00 AM



Joined: May 21, 2012

Posts: 4

Status: Offline
22 of november is over. We have a winner??? Very Happy
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Notorious_jtbOffline
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: NAF World Cup 2015 Q&A thread  PostPosted: Nov 23, 2013 - 11:23 AM



Joined: Sep 02, 2005
Canada
Posts: 1456
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
toriel, the bids were big, see Lycos' comment from a little while ago on page 1 of this thread.

      Lycos wrote:
I thought it would be good to let you know the 5 bids that are in. I have listed them in alphabetical order and they are of course a city within each of these countries. They are all terrific bids, some hard work has gone in to every one of them and for that reason, we may push back the dates for voting and questions by 7 or 14 days.

 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
LycosOffline
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: NAF World Cup 2015 Q&A thread  PostPosted: Nov 23, 2013 - 11:45 AM
Former President


Joined: Aug 22, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 1532
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
I did push the date back to the 30th - But - I have most of the votes in so I will ping off a few emails and see if I can get them all in a bit quicker.

Just about all the voting team said it was a fair bit to get through and in my personal opinion, it is respectful to all the bid teams for their efforts to be fully considered.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Rando
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: NAF World Cup 2015 Q&A thread  PostPosted: Nov 24, 2013 - 04:10 PM



Joined: May 09, 2008
Canada
Posts: 206
Location: Canada
I don't mind that the date was moved, but I was going to ask the same question as you toriel ... you simply beat me to it!

We last heard on October 24th that the final date might be moved 7 or 14 days down the road. I don't mind waiting but the wait is worse not knowing how long you have to wait Smile
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Notorious_jtbOffline
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: NAF World Cup 2015 Q&A thread  PostPosted: Nov 25, 2013 - 06:47 AM



Joined: Sep 02, 2005
Canada
Posts: 1456
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
      Rando wrote:
I don't mind that the date was moved, but I was going to ask the same question as you toriel ... you simply beat me to it!

We last heard on October 24th that the final date might be moved 7 or 14 days down the road. I don't mind waiting but the wait is worse not knowing how long you have to wait Smile


I think I assumed it was 7-14 days from the deadline of the 23 Nov Smile But yeah, always nice to know.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Powered by PNphpBB2 © 2003-2009 The Zafenio Team
Credits