Final post from me, I promise... My interpretation is that the BULA spirit sheet already defines a "minimum acceptable" with its descriptions of what you give 1 point for. By giving 0 (on a 0,1,2 scale), you're deeming a team's conduct in that area unacceptable. You wouldn't expect an actual average of 10 for any given weekend because you'd really hope that more than 50% of teams' conduct is acceptable. Of course, others may have a different interpretation. :p
This, I think, is another argument for asking teams to justify scores for each with a 2/3 word comment (maybe tick a box?), and potentially making it clearly positive and negative (-1, 0, +1). The tools, definitions etc all exist already - it's been done to death in previous discussions by so many different people/committees! Maybe we just need a more rigorous way of implementing them. And just to play Devil's advocate, there is a considerable argument against the whole positive/negative thing. Teams getting low positive scores may not have any motivation to try and improve their spirit, when clearly there is still room for improvement. However, you'd hope that teams getting these scores would be near the bottom of the spirit rankings, so that might give them a push in itself. There might always be a bit of a trade-off between encouraging good spirit and discouraging poor spirit, and I'm not sure a system exists that would do both in equal measures. Much love (and apologies for three posts in one day), Norris ________________________________ From: Magali Kostov <[email protected]> To: Rob Flintham <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, 17 May, 2011 15:24:26 Subject: Re: [BD] Spirit Scoring So it seems the problem is actually defining average (be that 10 or 0): is that: what you'd expect (in which case the average score for most tournaments should be around 10) or the minimum acceptable spirit ( in which case the average score should be more around 13ish because you'd like to think that most teams would be slightly above the "minimum acceptable behaviour" Maybe more a case of defining terms... Magali On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Rob Flintham <[email protected]> wrote: I think I agree, Emily, but I'm not 100% sure I catch your drift... so I'll just >try and add to it! :p > >IMHO, if 90% of teams score "above average", then this is not a bad thing SO >LONG AS IT'S CONSISTENT. Say the scale is -10 to +10, then you'd expect 0 to be >the minimum acceptable spirit needed for a fair game. Think along the lines of >"teams don't make trouble, but don't go out of their way". > >So the average score might be +6 or +7 on a scale of -10 to +10, which is fine >(and somewhat desirable) so long as it's genuinely reflective of how the teams >conducted themselves... >(which brings us back to the original debate about standardisation) > >The issue then becomes making sure people know what constitutes the "minimum >acceptable spirit needed for a fair game", which becomes an issue among the >"less competitive" where people seem to have conflicting ideas about the >difference between competitive play and bad spirit. >(which is a whole second debate, so I'll leave it there) > >Really should be doing more work, >Norris > > > >________________________________ >From: Emily Harford <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Tue, 17 May, 2011 14:45:44 > >Subject: Re: [BD] Spirit Scoring > > >I'd also like to point out that a lot of people say that the "average" team >should score in the middle, 10, 0, or whatever. I feel that it's often the case >we don't all have the same opinion of average, instead perhaps it should be >called "as expected". A team that is spirited in the expected manner (for the >sport) would score a flat middle rating, better than expected would be higher >and worse than expected lower. Simple definition, but it means that when spirit >levels rise above expectation the scores would indicate that quite strongly, >also if expectation rises ahead of spirited behaviour, this too would be >reflected. When they change at the same rate the scores remain steady year on >year. Exceptional behaviour remains exceptional, and un-spirited teams are >flagged earlier. Maybe. >Also, Norris's idea about commenting on non-standard spirit I think would >potentially be very helpful. I have seen it many times where a team can't >understand their score and feedback would be super-helpful. >Regards all, >Emily > >> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:30:58 +0100 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [BD] Spirit Scoring >> >> I'd like to throw a couple of comments/ideas in. >> >> I know it's not exactly the nice, cuddly, frisbee way of doing things, but >> why not just start at 0? Then teams can either give +1, 0 or -1 for >> different categories (contact, positive attitude, respect etc). I think a >> scale of -10 to +10 makes much more sense and is much easier to standardise >> than a scale of 0 to 20. >> >> "But then teams will end up with negative scores, which just isn't nice..." >> Big deal. :/ >> >> What would potentially improve the system further is forcing teams to give a >> comment wherever they've not awarded 0 for a category, e.g. "coarse >> language", "corrected own team's calls", "excessive contact". The idea >> wouldn't be for teams to have their scores moderated by the TD when they're >> collected***, but instead just to make teams think about whether they should >> really be awarding them that +1 or -1, rather than just going "meh, it was >> good..." and marking them up. >> >> The potential trap you leave open is that teams may start awarding blanket >> 0's because they can't be bothered to justify a non-zero score, but I'd like >> to think that people care enough about spirit to make the extra 5 seconds >> effort. >> >> That's my thoughts anyway. I'm prepared for them to be shot down. >> >> Guess I should get back to work, >> Norris >> >> >> ***You could argue that if a team awards +1 or -1 without a justification, >> then the score should be ignored and 0 given instead, but this creates a lot >> of extra work! I've struggled with the workload for a 24 team tournament >> with the BULA system as it is, so god help those who'd have to do it on >> tour. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 17 May 2011 13:20, Luke Tobiasiewicz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I would also apologise in advance for the hand I played in bringing this up >> > at the AGM and thank Jim for biting the bullet and getting the discussion >> > started ... >> > >> > I think that we definitely need to agree on a standardised method of >> > generating the score so that spirit scores given by different teams are >> > comparable and the whole league table of spirit scores at the end of a >> > tournament means something! >> > >> > Quick explanation of how drastic these differences can be below. If you >> > already get it then skip this next part >> > ----- >> > >> > Team A has played well spirit wise over the weekend and has had no real >> > issues. The teams they played have mostly given a middle average of 10 for >> > a >> > regular game. The team scores an average of 13 and comes last in the spirit >> > tables. >> > >> > Team B has played poorly spirit wise over the weekend but has had a couple >> > of poorly spirited games. The teams they have played have mostly given a >> > high average of 18 for a regular game. Team B scores an average of 15 for >> > the tournament, 3rd from top in spirit. >> > >> > >> > Now obviously there is something wrong here as a well spirited team has >> > come >> > last in the spirit rankings and a poorly spirited team very near the top. >> > Apart from the injustice of it all (! ouch ) the teams will take away the >> > wrong message from their placement in the spirit rankings, Team A believing >> > that they've done something terribly wrong and need to address it, while >> > what is worse I think, Team B going away thinking that their spirit over >> > the >> > weekend was very good when in fact it was not. >> > >> > ----- >> > >> > I would suggest 2 simple things that would resolve the issue: >> > >> > 1. Clear advice is given to TD's running UKU sanctioned events to use the >> > official scoring system, there have been a few tournaments over the last 2 >> > seasons where the system has not been used or has been modified in some >> > way, >> > which defeats the point of having a standardised system. >> > >> > 2. Clear advice is given to teams to standarise the scoring, and I would >> > suggest that a baseline score of 10 to which you can add to for well >> > spirited team and take away from for a poorly spirited team is adopted. >> > >> > This would also address Hatden's (valid or not) point of which teams win >> > spirit and why. >> > >> > Luke Tobiasiewicz >> > >> > Fire of London #13 >> > St Albans Club President >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 17 May 2011 12:05, Jim Hancox <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > BritDisc, >> > > >> > > Firstly, an apology - if this innocent e-mail starts a thread that fills >> > > people's inboxes then I'm sorry. However, this post is done with the >> > backing >> > > of Si Hill so if you do want to complain, do it in his direction! ;-) >> > > >> > > At the UKU AGM on held last Friday the subject of Spirit was brought up. >> > In >> > > traditional AGM fashion, the discussion went somewhat off topic and the >> > > intricacies of how teams score their opponents spirit was touched on. >> > > >> > > As you know, UKU sanctioned tournaments have adopted the BULA spirit >> > > scoring system for a while now and, on the whole, this seems to have >> > > positively received. The purpose of this post is spark a bit of debate as >> > to >> > > how teams actually generate an opponents score using this system and to, >> > > hopefully, settle on a method of doing this that every team can use >> > ensuring >> > > that all the submitted scores at a tournament are relevant to each other. >> > > >> > > So, what am I really getting at?! Well, having spoken to a few people at >> > > recent tournaments it seems that there is a difference in how teams use >> > this >> > > system. For example, some teams will reckon on a an averagely spirited >> > game >> > > getting a score of 10/20 and then adjusting the score either positively >> > or >> > > negatively according to the specifics of a game. >> > > >> > > An alternative, and seemingly quite common, approach is to always start >> > > with a score of 20/20 and deduct points for anything less than perfect >> > sprit >> > > by your opponent. >> > > >> > > These two approaches could easily conjure up quite different scores for >> > the >> > > same game... >> > > >> > > I don't really care which way of doing things is correct if I'm honest. I >> > > just want to make sure that when I fill out a sheet, I'm doing it the >> > same >> > > way as everyone else!! >> > > >> > > Cheers... >> > > >> > > Jim. >> > > >> > > Jim Hancox >> > > Interim UKU Mixed Coordinator >> > > [email protected] >> > > >> > > www.ukultimate.com >> > > >> > > __________________________________________________ >> > > BritDisc mailing list >> > > [email protected] >> > > http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc >> > > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed >> > > >> > __________________________________________________ >> > BritDisc mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc >> > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed >> > >> __________________________________________________ >> BritDisc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc >> Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed > >__________________________________________________ >BritDisc mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc >Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed >__________________________________________________ >BritDisc mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc >Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed > __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
