1. The moderators of this forum are deadfox081, Dogfish44, Elevator Music, zarator, and ZhengTann
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.
  3. Click here to ensure that you never miss a new SmogonU video upload!

Discussion Referee Payment

Discussion in 'Policy Center' started by Dogfish44, Jan 3, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Glacier Knight

    Glacier Knight

    May 12, 2011
    Like I hinted at before.... The current system isn't all that bad. The only problems are DQ payout.... And cases like mine, ED's, an other large battles. Could we perhaps create a dual system? Combining the current system and IAR's? So that bigger matches use the pay by action formula, and smaller matches stay just like they are? Or if people prefer SDS's system over the original, use that?

    I am all for all the systems, except the only ones that help give larger matches justice is IARs. We need to implement something of the sort, so when people get the urge to have a melee, or have a cool large battle like the ultimate showdown and icy forest, the refs get their just desserts.
  2. Objection


    Sep 27, 2008
    To be honest, if we try to implement a system like SDS' or IAR's now, this discussion is going to go on forever. For now, I think the best thing to do is implement a quick and dirty solution that solves the problem of battles that end in DQ and maybe does something about the larger battles, and try that out for a while. If, after said while, there are vehement complaints about the UC payout system, then we can look again at systems like SDS' and IAR's.
  3. Texas Cloverleaf

    Texas Cloverleaf meh
    is a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Oct 23, 2009
    I still support a quick fix, at least temporarily. Also death to per-action payouts.
  4. Glacier Knight

    Glacier Knight

    May 12, 2011
    I'll change support to a quick fix. Sounds nice enough.
  5. Orcinus Duo

    Orcinus Duo Banned deucer.

    Aug 23, 2011
    I think stuff like Ultimate Showdown should be handled on a per case basis through deck and the like.
  6. Eternal Drifter

    Eternal Drifter

    Apr 11, 2012
    I'd say welcome back, but you seem to have struck a nerve on me with the first sentence of this comment. Apparently, you've missed a few big things here in your absence. In short, this is more urgent now than you realize.

    I tried getting a response from Deck Knight about payouts for the Icy Forest, and he gave me a response:

    So Deck Knight is expecting a new formula coming soon, I believe, to deal with events like the Showdown and the Forest. And you want the system to stay the same? This is annoying to me, and most likely the participants as well (though I'm still waiting on the words of the last participant on loot), because I can't give out prizes until this is dealt with (I will NOT accept just 15 UC for this; I didn't do this for the UC, but I want to get paid fairly for this).

    In addition, there's been a rash of quick, one-sided battles for the sole purpose of gaining counters, and then there's been a few battles where participants are stall-happy (see my recent battle verses akela, for example). And then there's the time where you left everyone hanging, and poor Pwnemon wound up with 2 UC from the battle I DQed you from. In both of the later cases, I believe that the referees were paid unfairly for their services (and Pwnemon actually complained about it).

    Change is needed, and the sooner we can get a system up, the better.

    Pre-Post Edit: Smart, editing your post... but my points still stand. And I'm still annoyed at you.

    Edit @ below: The other reason the participants are not getting prizes right now is that they still have to decide who gets what items they found on the adventure. Though I would like referee payment dealt with before giving prizes, I will give prizes out to the battlers once they get that sorted out, and then claim UC once ref payment is sorted out.
  7. Orcinus Duo

    Orcinus Duo Banned deucer.

    Aug 23, 2011
    You knew what you were getting into when you agreed to ref the battle.

    And just for clarification, I confused quick fix and hotfix lol. >.< my bad.

    EDIT: DQ needs an overhaul. Otherwise, the current UC system does not. You knew what you were getting paid for with the icy forest battle when you agreed to ref it. The fact that you are withholding prizes for the participants for you to get more UC because "omg i did so much work i will NOT accept just 15 UC!!" despite the fact that you signed up to ref under the knowledge that you would get exactly 15 UC is actually deplorable.

    Take the UC like I did and be happy with the fact that you pulled off reffing that battle. Or hand out the prizes to the participants and wait for Deck's word on what you as a ref should get. You should not be witholding the battler's prizes, causing them inconvenience, solely for personal gain.
  8. Its_A_Random

    Its_A_Random A distant memory
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus

    Mar 19, 2010
    orcinus, if you are not reffing anything any more, then why are you chucking such a hissy fit, just because of a silly UC Cap on melees & brawls that should have never existed in the first place? Also, you have massively contradicted yourself in your first post saying that SDS > Current > IAR, then concluding that post to say that the current system is the best. That, however, is beside the point.

    Not everyone is like you. Not everyone refs for fun & not the UC. Not everyone takes a measly hour to ref one round of a 12 man 1v1. Not everyone writes zero flavour in all their reffings. Not everyone refs brawls. Not everyone...you get the point. Furthermore, you need to get this idea out of your head that fixing the payout for melees & brawls is going to see a massive ASB Battle shift towards something extreme like 20-man 6v6 Brawls, because it is not. Lucrative a 20-man 6v6 Brawl may be, but not everyone will have the time, or the dedication, to ref even a round of one within DQ. You cannot escape the fact that Brawls & the like can be a nightmare to ref for the Average Joe, especially when taking into account the number of actions, substitutions, & god forbid, many spread moves. Handling the pays on a case by case basis with Deck & the like is not going to cut it. At all. Deck can only be around for so long, & some day, even someone like Deck will have to eventually leave ASB for good.

    Stop displaying a negative attitude to people like Eternal Drifter & Glacier Knight. Telling them, or anyone else, to "Grow up & get over it", is not going to cut it either. They went out of their way to ref something way larger than your 12-man 1v1's, & guess what? They even had the nerve to include full blown flavour into their reffings. So what if the prizes for Icy Forest are being with-held? Maybe the participants agreed to wait for their prizes, which I am 100% sure is the case.

    Now. If you think it is okay that payouts for brawls & melees should not be changed at all, then why? Why do you think the current payout for brawls & melees is satisfactory? As far as I am, & many others at the moment are concerned, your opposition to this surmounts to "no reason". There is zero evidence in this discussion to say that we should not change the pays to brawls & melees. Not to mention, you are the only one to oppose this. On the contrary, there is enough evidence, enough demand, & enough support, to say that we should be fixing the pay for brawls & melees, as well as DQ.

    Now. If anyone has any proposals fix DQ or proposals to fix Brawl & Melee Payouts, do not be afraid to post them. I still support dogfish's proposal to fix DQ, but yeah.
  9. Orcinus Duo

    Orcinus Duo Banned deucer.

    Aug 23, 2011
    ED's statement of "I will NOT accept 15 UC for this" is absolutely wrong in all aspects because that was the conditions he signed up to ref under. I ref big ass shit for fun. I'm fine with being underpaid. If ED was not fine with being underpaid, it is wrong of him to ref something big, claim that he was unfairly underpaid, and then use that as a bargaining chip in pushing a change in referee payout, because when you ref, there is an agreement that you will be paid X amount of tokens. If you were/are not fine with getting X amount of tokens and would withhold tokens from your battlers to push an agenda, sorry bud, you shouldn't have reffed it.

    I also do not believe you have ever reffed a brawl, melee, or whatever, so I absolutely fail to see where this pedestal you are standing on appeared from. You need to get the fuck off it.

    Also, I've also seen a bajillion of your shittier proposals fall through entirely, so don't harp on me with "you're the only one against this".

    Brawl/melee payouts are unsatisfactory. I agree. However, I don't believe that we should make them lucrative. Reffing a 12 man melee is easy. It takes you an hour in total to ref if there are 12 people on the field, and we all know how fast that number decreases. If you're going to give a set amount of tokens for each calculation you run, 12 man melees will be overpaid by so much.

    Glacier's melee should NOT be decided by a formula because of its unique circumstance. Unless that formula includes the amount of work Glacier put in flavor-wise and arena-wise, because no formula could ever reflect that. It is naive and (dare I say it) stupid to assume that you can create a catch-all formula to assess how much work something like Glacier's megamelee is worth. If such a formula were to be used and implemented, watch the plethora of people create 20+man brawls, include no flavor, in the ASB arena, and get the exact same amount of tokens Glacier got. Is that fair enough for you, IAR? And besides, Glacier's melee is something that would only happen once in a blue moon, so the "omg deck leaving" is a pointless hypothetical.


    I can run a 35 man melee in the ASB arena. No problem. Give me the word and the people and I'll do it.
    It would be worth a tiny fraction of what Glacier should get for his melee.

    Your "formula" would not be able to distinguish it.

    And then glacier is underpaid.

    And then what. A UC for every word of flavor? A UC for every mechanic?

    Get real.

    EDIT: And stop assuming you speak on behalf of the ASB community. You're not that important to be able to speak on behalf of 50 people and dismiss my reasoning. Get over yourself.

    00:01 orcinus you know what objection
    00:01 Objection unless the formula outputs recurring decimals or some shit like that
    00:01 orcinus we should pay the refs more UC
    00:01 Objection it's gonna be viable
    00:01 orcinus for the amount of work they spend
    00:01 orcinus in calculating how much UC they get.
    00:01 Zt I admit that its impossible, Orci - yet I strive to make it as close as possible.
    00:01 orcinus /fin.
    00:01 Objection y'know
    00:01 orcinus that at last
    00:02 orcinus is the perfect formula.
    00:02 Objection a small part of me thinks that's not a bad idea
  10. ZhengTann

    ZhengTann Nargacuga
    is a Forum Moderator

    Mar 7, 2012
    This discussion is derailing - its getting obvious that we've turned from a debate to a personal name-calling war. I know I'm risking moderation with this, but as an ASB-er who likes this forum, likes this community, likes the discussions, likes the friends he made here, I am requesting that this thread is closed temporarily while the Council decides on a new approach to this topic. If we continue on this path, it will only end with a sour note. I put my trust in the Council - let them decide however they want to reopen this issue, and then we'll resume again.
  11. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    May 29, 2008
    Better idea: don't waste time with something imperfect, don't let the discussion go on forever, and don't kow-tow to people who want to argue on the basis of anything other than logic. It turns out that the discussion goes a lot faster that way.
  12. Objection


    Sep 27, 2008
    Long discussion between ZhengTann and Orcinus Duo (pruned) (open)
    [16:05] <Zt> Let's do this, then - You put forward a one-liner argument, I counter with another one-liner.
    [16:05] <Zt> Obj can kick whoever posted more than 2 lines. 
    [16:05] <orcinus> ok let's go
    [16:05] <orcinus> counting actions is too much work for the sole purpose of ensuring a "fair payout"
    [16:05] <Zt> You fisrt, orci. 
    [16:06] <Zt> I can program a calc - all it takes is to just count. 
    [16:06] <orcinus> "Just count" is a under-representation of how much work it is for larger battles
    [16:07] <Zt> Hence we add in a multiplicative factor that gets larger depending on #pokemons and format. 
    [16:07] <orcinus> Are you to assume that all approvers, every time someone wants to claim from a battle, must count how many actions took place?
    [16:08] <Zt> Yes, its part of their job, as it is with Reg Tower and others. 
    [16:08] <orcinus> Should approvers be paid more for this too?
    [16:08] <Zt> Possible, but I'll admit I'm working my formula on refs only. 
    [16:09] <orcinus> Seeing as counting actions is a great deal of work, especially for larger battles, wouldn't it be unfair for approvers not to be paid extra?
    [16:10] <Zt> Refs are required to post their action-count to be verified by approvers, who'll also have the same calc as reffs. 
    [16:11] <orcinus> So effectively, you're paying refs+approvers more UC to calculate payout...in order for refs to have a 'fairer' payout. y/n?
    [16:12] <%Objection> <Zt> Obj - can you say that orci is allowed to reiterate his question if he feels that I'm not answering it well enough? Vice versa.
    [16:12] <Zt> No, I did not say approvers WILL get raised. I merely say refs will get paid based on the complexity and length of their work. 
    [16:12] <orcinus> Right, but: Seeing as counting actions is a great deal of work, especially for larger battles, wouldn't it be unfair for approvers not to be paid extra?
    [16:13] <orcinus> I mean, if we are using a more complex formula, the people whoa re forced to use the formula should be paid more, since we're all about fairness, right? (this is a clarification)
    [16:13] <Zt> No, I don't think so, as counting is not complex, merely tedious. 
    [16:13] <orcinus> can't that be said for reffing as a whole?
    [16:14] <Zt> No - Rock Slide in Triples is not equal to Cyclohm versus Magikarp, for example. 
    [16:14] <orcinus> rephrase that please. Isn't reffing as a whole tedious and not complex?
    [16:14] <orcinus> I don't understand the rock slide, cyclohm/magi example.
    [16:16] <Zt> Complexity of reffing comes from multiple factors (STAB, SE, Spread) , yet action-counting is merely simple addition. So the former is complex, the latter tedious. 
    [16:17] <orcinus> Okay here we have a fundamental disagreement. STAB, SE, Spread, are all simple functions that a calculator could solve, which is identical to this reffing formula that you propose. But okay. That argument is a dead end.
    [16:18] <orcinus> What is your stance on using formula for large brawls and melees; What factors need to be included in the formula?
    [16:18] <Zt> Number of Pokemon per side, and total individual actions, mainly - RP bonuses can be codified and added. 
    [16:19] <orcinus> How would RP bonuses be codified and added?
    [16:20] <Zt> As an addition to the multiplicative factor aforementioned. Amount of bonus will be decided by RP approval committee. 
    [16:20] <orcinus> And this amount of bonus would be dealt with on a /case by case basis/, yes?
    [16:21] <Zt> Yes, but notice that unlike your basis, my proposed formula has enough fixed factors to minimize deviation. 
    [16:21] <orcinus> i like being able to hold this intellectual conversation.
    [16:21] <orcinus> Will the RP approval committee be paid for their efforts?
    [16:22] <Zt> No, I doubt they will, as per tradition, but that issue is correct only at the present - I know not what the future brings. 
    [16:22] <Zt> Also, if I may, I'd like to go back on our 1st fundamental disagreement. 
    [16:24] <orcinus> You can't dodge that question. You said earlier on that your goal, like that of obj and IAR, is to provide a catch-all formula for the future and codify things, in your words, "for every, fucking, single reffing in the future". You need to answer this question, otherwise it is a blatant self-contradiction. Are RP approvers paid, and are prize claiming approve
    [16:24] <orcinus> rs paid
    [16:25] <orcinus> And we'll go back when i'm done with this line of thought if you don't mind.
    [16:25] <orcinus> (might take a while)
    [16:25] <Zt> Notice I said "reffing", not approval. I said this because reffing is now an open task to all ASB-ers, whereas approver-status is only granted to a dedicated few as a token of appreciation of their contribution. 
    [16:26] <orcinus> Ah. But approvers' work are inherently linked to the referees payout. You can't ignore one but not the other. I suppose my point here is this:
    [16:28] <orcinus> So far, you have stated that large melees like glacier's will be dealt with using the base formula as a fundamental, but the RP committee has to deal with each one on a case by case basis. Approvers also now have the added task of checking a more nasty formula. So first off, we will have to choose between making approvers work more than they are paid for (ass
    [16:28] <orcinus> uming they are paid fairly now), or increasing pay for approvers as well as everything else because of the implementation of a "fair" ref payout. Which is it?
    [16:31] <Zt> Approvers are admittedly, a subjective issue - notice that some approval posts count twice IF sufficiently large, where "sufficient" is a subjective term. So if I were done with refs, and I feel personally that approvers deserve more/less, I will pursue that path. Because I cannot feel the same depth on both sides as an active ref, but non-approver. 
    [16:32] <orcinus> So why do you think it is prudent to spend time creating a massively complicated formula for the sake of accuracy and ask RP committee to deal with large melees on a case by case basis, when large melees such as Glacier's happen so rarely that they can be dealt with on a case by case basis directly?
    [16:35] <Zt> As I've said - to minimize deviation and provide an objective base of discussion. Without the formula, RP approvers lack a base reference, and I aim to fix that. 
    [16:35] <orcinus> Prize claiming approvers don't have an "objective base of discussion"--all of the guidelines they have they made up themselves. Where's the difference?
    [16:38] <Zt> If I'm bold enough to comment on approving compensation, I'd say that it is present simply to provide an incentive for efficient claiming. Notice that Deck himself said, and I quote, "people really shouldn't wait for 3 days to get an approved claim"
    [16:39] <Zt> I'm sure approvers can be trusted to approve without compensation, as they do not gain such status without significant contribution to the community. 
    [16:39] <orcinus> zt can you rephrase that?
    [16:39] <orcinus> oh ok i get the second sentence.
    [16:40] <orcinus> You misunderstand me. I'm saying, prize claiming approvers set rules by themselves, they judge how much a claim is worth--and they have always demonstrated fair judgement. Do you feel that RP committees lack this common sense, and that is why you need to give them a massively complicated formula to base their estimation of UC worth off of?
    [16:41] <orcinus> (this is under the assumption here that we both want RP committees to have a hand in judging how big melees are paid in interest of flavor/mechanics/wtv)
    [16:42] <Zt> Orci - Claimings follow a set format, hence approvers can demonstrate fair judgement in approving claims. But we have RPs ranging from Showdown to Hunger Games, TLR and Pikes - a diverse set that requires a base formula to be as fair as possible. 
    [16:43] <orcinus> So you're saying that you want to create a formula that encompasses everything from TLRs and Pikes and Showdown and whatever? Or are you saying that we should come up with formulas for every different thing: so like, even though showdown is a one time thing, we should come up with a formula for it
    [16:44] <Zt> No. I'm proposing that we implement one single formula, with enough independent variables (by my count, 4) so that every single reffing claim is based on that one formula, only with varying magnitudes where the said independent variables are concerned. 
    [16:45] <orcinus> And that's practical...why?
    [16:47] <Zt> Viable in implementation with a simple custom calc, reffing uniformity throughout, maximum accuracy in work and effort representation, minimized subjectivity wherever it exists. 
    [16:48] <orcinus> The independent variables would need to be changed for different RPs, so why not just come up for different formulas for different ones? It makes no sense to pay TLR refs the same formula as Showdown ones.
    [16:50] <Zt> As I've said - minimizing subjectivity. Changing the variables results in different formulas, yes - but with the foundation, there will be less deviation. Perhaps I should rephrase "Formula" into "Function", since it would be a more accurate term. 
    [16:53] <orcinus> So we need to change the payouts for TLR/Battle Hall/etc. refs because currently they're not based on the same foundation
    [16:53] <orcinus> right?
    [16:54] <orcinus> we need to wrap this up.
    [16:54] <Zt> If I can garner enough support, yes, that is my intended proposal. But I do keep in mind that I need to persuade the community, including, you. And agreed, it's late for us. 
    [16:55] <orcinus> there are some good points in the past hour or so. Someone should pastebin it into the thread.
    [16:55] <orcinus> 00:21	orcinus	i like being able to hold this intellectual conversation.
    [16:56] <%Objection> i'm gonna do that now
    [16:56] <Zt> Agreed orci. But I'll be afk until 21st nighttime - shall we resume then?
    [16:56] <orcinus> I think I still disagree with you on a few fundamental levels, but that's an issue of personal preference. I still think some points are flat out wrong though--unifying formulas for apples and oranges shouldn't happen. TLR/Raid/whatever have different formulas. Not "same foundation basically"--different formulas. And to say that we're implementing "independen
    [16:57] <orcinus> t variables for each formula" is just a fancy way of saying "different formulas"
    [16:57] <orcinus> And to say that we're creating a formula for glacier's showdown which probably will only happen once is pretty dumb.
    [16:58] <orcinus> And the complicated ref UC program thing will cause approvers add to their UC because of the increased work /they're/ doing, otherwise it's not fair, and it's all just a slippery slope where everyone gets more UC for doing calculations which aren't relatd to the game at all.
    [16:58] <Zt> I can accept that "different independent formulas" is another name for "different formulas", true enough. But I refuse to accept that anything in the chat, on the forums, and in ASB is dumb - except maybe Yarnus (this means my part is over for tonight)
    [16:59] <orcinus> Furthermore, if you're taking this first step into a "unified payout" through everything, you need to be able to outline your plan for the future. Otherwise, it's a half baked plan.
    [16:59] <orcinus> Anyways, that's my summary.
    [17:00] <Zt> Ending line - I am having the future in my mind. I do that with every proposal I support or put forward in Feedback / Policy Center. Do not underestimate me for that, I take this game seriously enough :P
  13. Dogfish44

    Dogfish44 ^_^
    is a Forum Moderator

    Jan 1, 2009
    Far too many arguments in here are getting very personal, and to the point where editing them out of every post would gut the entire thread. Council is voting on whether or not to implement an immediate solution, after which it is quite likely a new discussion thread will go up in regards to the referee payment system as a whole.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)