[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