PDA

View Full Version : CALL FOR VOTE: Amendment to Motion 2012-S



Lyle Craver
04-04-2012, 12:54 PM
NOTE: So we are all clear, the intent of the amendment is to prevent players with a rating above 2199 from receiving bonus points.

The amendment to 2012-S (Moved Egidijus Zeromskis, seconded Lyle Craver) is to remove all references to players rated over 2199.

Voting starts immediately with polling to end Thursday at the start of the voting period at 9 pm ET.

Here is the original motion (with the text to be removed in red):

Moved by Paul Leblanc
Seconded by Fred McKim

To replace the existing Bonus Point Formula (CFC Handbook Art. 714.d) with the following:

BONUS 1 = Rmax BONUS *a*Ke
BONUS 2 = b*RATING CHANGE BONUS*(Rnew – Rold – THRESHOLD)*Ke
TOTAL BONUS = BONUS 1 + BONUS 2

where:
a = 1 if the new rating is at an all time high, 0 otherwise;
b = 1 if Rnew > Rold + Threshold, 0 otherwise;

Threshold = RtgChangeThreshold*Ke*sqrt(n) where n is the number of games played; no bonus points are awarded if less than 4 games are played;

Ke is the ratio of the player's K factor to the K factor used for players rated under 2200; For the CFC rating system, K=32 for players under 2200 and K=16 for players at or over 2200;

Rnew is the post-event rating and Rold is the pre-event rating;
and RatingMaxBonus, RtgChangeBonus, and RtgChangeThreshold are constants with the following values:
RatingMaxBonus = 20; RtgChangeBonus = 1.75; RtgChangeThreshold = 13.

The numerical values in the bonus point equation may be adjusted from time to time by the Rating Auditor as deemed necessary and in consultation with the CFC Executive

Lyle Craver
04-05-2012, 02:59 PM
This is a tricky one since based on the wording one could get confused.

A "yes" vote means no bonus points for masters.
A "no" vote means there are to be bonus points for masters.

Depending on the result of the amendment vote we will be voting on either the amended or original motion.

Bob Gillanders
04-05-2012, 03:52 PM
This is a tricky one since based on the wording one could get confused.

A "yes" vote means no bonus points for masters.
A "no" vote means there are to be bonus points for masters.

Depending on the result of the amendment vote we will be voting on either the amended or original motion.

Lyle,

In the case where some governors may have misunderstood the amendment, can you confirm that you will accept a change of vote if you receive an email indicating as such?

I ask not for myself, since I waited until we all got the clarification. :)

Christopher Mallon
04-05-2012, 03:57 PM
A clarification please: If the amendment passes, does this mean that players above 2199 do not receive bonus points, or that bonus points are not applied above 2199?

The second way would be far more fair, IMHO, rather than giving an advantage to being rated 2199 vs 2200.

Kevin Pacey
04-05-2012, 04:19 PM
A clarification please: If the amendment passes, does this mean that players above 2199 do not receive bonus points, or that bonus points are not applied above 2199?

The second way would be far more fair, IMHO, rather than giving an advantage to being rated 2199 vs 2200.

Chris, maybe it's just me, but I don't see the difference between the first way you gave and your second way, by the way you've phrased them.

I suspect you want to know if a player rated 2199 still receives bonus points (until, or even after, his rating crosses 2200 at some point in the computations).

Egidijus Zeromskis
04-05-2012, 04:38 PM
players above 2199 do not receive bonus points,

I meant this case. It is more simple to implement. And matter of fact: >=2200 is Rold (before the event)

Lyle Craver
04-05-2012, 04:41 PM
I could accept a change in vote if sent by e-mail timestamped before the voting deadline. (I am very specific on this point because I have previously received e-mails with timestamps after the voting deadline seeking to vote or change a vote and to those I've had to say "very sorry but...")

Please note that the forum software does not allow a change of vote so if someone were to change his/her mind e-mail would be the only way.

In general though my reading of 2010-18 (the motion creating the online meeting format) says we do voting only via the forum. Since the software does not allow something that the CFC has always allowed (ie changing one's mind), some flexibility is required.

Though my long-term hope is that the software adapt to how we do business rather than workarounds when it doesn't!

A caveat - any Governor wishing to do this should do so as far ahead of the deadline as possible as when the closing time comes round we work very hard to give fast reporting of results - and there is definitely a time-delay in e-mail. It's usually less than 5 minutes but can be over an hour.

Paul Leblanc
04-05-2012, 07:45 PM
Removing the definition of K factor for 2200+ players isn't the correct way to amend this motion. However, I think we all understand the intent and if the amendment passes, I will adjust the formulae to achieve the aim.
However, I caution against implementing an amendment such as this that has no scientific basis. Why 2200?

Christopher Mallon
04-06-2012, 02:47 PM
Chris, maybe it's just me, but I don't see the difference between the first way you gave and your second way, by the way you've phrased them.

I suspect you want to know if a player rated 2199 still receives bonus points (until, or even after, his rating crosses 2200 at some point in the computations).

What I meant is that once you hit 2200 (ie 2199 + 1 or whatever) no more bonus points are applied. I don't see why this would be any easier or more difficult to apply than the other way... maybe it takes 30 seconds longer to program.

Example - two players in an event, They both play the same players with the same results. Player A started at 2199, player B started at 2200. Player A would end up with a higher rating than Player B, just because he happened to start out below the artificial threshold.

Since it was defeated it's a moot point, I just wanted you to see where I was coming from.

Kevin Pacey
04-06-2012, 03:31 PM
What I meant is that once you hit 2200 (ie 2199 + 1 or whatever) no more bonus points are applied. I don't see why this would be any easier or more difficult to apply than the other way... maybe it takes 30 seconds longer to program.

Example - two players in an event, They both play the same players with the same results. Player A started at 2199, player B started at 2200. Player A would end up with a higher rating than Player B, just because he happened to start out below the artificial threshold.

Since it was defeated it's a moot point, I just wanted you to see where I was coming from.

Yes, I believe that's what I suspected you meant, even if I didn't express it in a manner you agreed with.