APA Rules Question - Intentional Forfeit

KMRUNOUT · Dec 9, 2017

APA Operator said:
I'll take a shot at that. How about "As is often the case, I fail to see the logic in a statement made by an APA LO"?

Just because you don't understand the logic, it doesn't necessarily mean there is none, or that the person making the statement is incapable of logical thinking or expression. In other words, your understanding is sufficient, but not necessary, for the statement to be logical.

By saying you don't understand the logic, you open the door to a conversation about why that is so. I have some thoughts on that, as well as some responses the the other parts of your original reply to my post. Unfortunately, right now is a very busy time for most of us, as sessions are ending and we're dealing with playoffs, awards, and other session-ending stuff. So it may be a few days before I can put those thoughts into a suitable form for this forum.

Thanks APA Operator, I appreciate your attempt here.

I don't think I could have used your suggestion, because then I would not be telling the truth. One difficulty that we jointly face is the idea that statements are logical or they are not. There are no "kinda logical" statements. As such, the exact opposite of what you say is also equally true. Just because you think what you have offered is logical, does not make it so. Neither my understanding nor yours has any bearing on whether a statement is logical. I concede that whether or not your post or any other statement is logical is most likely insufficient information for me or anyone else to conclude that you are generally illogical. However, I did not claim that you are generally illogical. I claimed that my experience with APA LO's has been decidedly characterized by a lack of logical thinking. I claimed that your current statement was another example of this.

So here's the dilemma: I believe that I understood you completely, and that some of what you had to say was illogical. Claiming that I "fail to see your logic" in that scenario would be pretty close to lying. What I did see, and believe I understood, appeared illogical to me. Asking me to say something other than "your comments are illogical" strikes me as not only illogical, but actually a negative thing for both of us, mostly for you. Without question I am a very different sort of person. I prefer matter of fact speech to any sort of tricks or deceptions designed to "manipulate" other people into engaging a topic. I realize that many many people, even most people, take great offense to claims that their logic is flawed. I welcome such observations, and really enjoy hearing the explanations of why the other person believes as they do. Maybe they are right and I turn out to be illogical in my statement. Maybe they are wrong. Maybe they are right and lack the ability to articulate the reasons why I'm wrong. In any case, I hold faith in the idea that rational logical people will reveal these truths through dialog.

Understand that part of the idea I was attempting to express is the idea that I am feeling *exasperation* with APA LO's and their consistent lack of logic. Let me point out right now that you are WAY ahead of that curve based just on the few things you've said. I could tell you stories that would probably make you wince. The mere fact that you replied to me and attempted to formulate some rational ideas tells me that we definitely have a good shot of having a nice conversation and logically arriving at some smart ideas.

So given all that, perhaps I could have said "I believe that what you have said is illogical. I may be mistaken, so maybe we could go into it a little? It's frustrating to me because of a long history of decidedly illogical conversations with APA LO's." At least that way what I am saying is truthful, expressed my concerns, and leaves open the possibility that I've overlooked something. Does that seem reasonable to you? Had I said exactly that, might you have taken it as an insult?

In any case best wishes with your holiday and/or season ending workload. I look forward to resuming the conversation when you have some more time.

Thanks again for the reply,

KMRUNOUT

Shawn Armstrong · Dec 9, 2017

KMRUNOUT said:
Ok Shawn thanks for your perspective. I did however ask how you would word the idea. I would have loved to hear your answer to that. Sometimes asking questions works, sometimes it doesn't.

Take care,

KMRUNOUT

Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

I found his post to be quite easily to understand, and not illogical in the slightest. Anything done with the purpose of keeping your player’s handicap down is a direct form of handicap manipulation. I don’t think one week is a “pattern”. However, one team we had in this area kept playing their 2 against the highest ranked player on the other team’s roster. She never won a match. Their logic was that they needed a 2 to keep their lineup intact for regionals. Once they got to regionals, she played other 2s and 3s because she was pretty much locked in with 20 losses in her last 20 games. That, for me, is handicap manipulation. You are never giving her an opponent she has a chance of beating, and she is a sacrificial lamb.

Anyways, I didn’t find his post to be illogical. Maybe if you want to have the debate with me, we could discuss? I’ve been in the APA system since 1998. I have a decent understanding of how the system works.

DelaWho??? · Dec 10, 2017

APA Operator said:
Anything done with the goal of affecting or managing a player's skill level is manipulation. The only thing you can do is not help them improve.

If you think your player is better than their number, and do things like not play them to keep them from demonstrating that ability, it is manipulation. If you play them with the hope that they will get destroyed by a far superior player, it is manipulation as you are trying to manipulate the data in the system. Sometimes you can't avoid a match up with a world-beater, and in those cases you are not manipulating, but if you're actually setting your player up to take a big loss, you're cheating. If you play them against a better player to see how they will do, it's not manipulation - you don't know what the outcome will be, and that information is useful to us, too.

.

The team captain is responsible to manage a teams handicap, manage the matchups and win matches. Throwing a 3 on a 5/6/7 isn't when you have a5/6/7 isn't manipulation. You might do it for a number of reasons. To neutralize a strong opponent giving your less skilled 5/6/7 a greater chance to win. Logically you put your strongest 3 (the one on the verge of goin up) to give yourself the greatest chance for a point or an upset. If the 3 loses and stays a 3, you have managed their handicap and given the team a greater chance to win. Ideally you do it to get the point and hold the skill player to 2, and your player handicap to 3. While you want your player to win odds are that they won't and the team still benefits. If the player wins and goes up they were probably meant to be a 4 anyway. If it was a fluke the next few matches as a 4 will tell that tale and the player will go back down.

It's hard for a team to stay together and be good enough to get anywhere nd maintain the 23 rule. managing players and match ups is the only way to exert any control over handicap and keep a team viable and together.

I can understand your point of view as it is in the league's (and your own) best interest to have teams split apart. More often than not you get a new team and additional dues. My job is to keep the team a team so we can win together and go farther.

DelaWho??? · Dec 10, 2017

On the intentional forfeit. I would never do it. If you had to though, if the player isn't in the building to be called there isn't a sportsmanship issue. I'd have the player leave early.

flaslyfox · Dec 10, 2017

no problem you just pay for thr forfeit and that's it

KMRUNOUT · Dec 11, 2017

Shawn Armstrong said:
I found his post to be quite easily to understand, and not illogical in the slightest. Anything done with the purpose of keeping your player’s handicap down is a direct form of handicap manipulation. I don’t think one week is a “pattern”. However, one team we had in this area kept playing their 2 against the highest ranked player on the other team’s roster. She never won a match. Their logic was that they needed a 2 to keep their lineup intact for regionals. Once they got to regionals, she played other 2s and 3s because she was pretty much locked in with 20 losses in her last 20 games. That, for me, is handicap manipulation. You are never giving her an opponent she has a chance of beating, and she is a sacrificial lamb.

Anyways, I didn’t find his post to be illogical. Maybe if you want to have the debate with me, we could discuss? I’ve been in the APA system since 1998. I have a decent understanding of how the system works.

Shawn, I suppose we could discuss why I believe APA Operator's post to be illogical. I'd surely rather discuss with him. However, having been in the league essentially exactly as long as you, I'm extremely aware of how things work. In a nutshell, I believe the missing element was a definition of "manipulation", and a declaration whether he believes manipulation is wrong by definition. I do not. All matches are specifically manipulation of the APA system. You are trying to leverage the rules to the greatest benefit for your team. Every match you play is an attempt to manipulate the "match up", such that you believe that your team will benefit most. I think is is sound strategy to dump your worst player on the best player on the other team if you believe that no one on your team can beat or do well against that opponent. More to the point of the post, I believe that electing to sit a player if your roster allows because you believe that player's handicap may go up, and you would prefer to save that player at their current handicap for a time when they would be more valuable, is perfectly reasonable and smart strategy. If you are forced to play that player in a scenario where a win by them would provide no benefit to your team, and you also want to avoid missing or losing on purpose, then forfeiting them is a smart option.

If you want to debate my last point, feel free to explain your issues with my statement. Telling me it is "manipulation" is a waste of time and irrelevant, for reasons already stated. Rather, I recommend you try and explain why doing this violates a moral principle. Given that in two attempts you didn't answer the question I asked you, you should forgive my apprehension and doubt that a rational conversation is in our future. I am happy to take a 3rd shot though. Probably a 4th too. (so if your reply doesn't include a clear statement of the moral principle you believe my strategy violates, we are already moving on to attempt # 4). I'll remain optimistic.

KMRUNOUT

APA Operator · Dec 17, 2017

KMRUNOUT said:
It's super depressing but not unexpected to hear someone who is presumably a LO talking like this. The first half of your post is highly illogical. ALL play, all matches "manipulate" your skill level because everything is accounted for! I used to want to go up to the next level, so I made a real point of making sure my safes got marked, I'd want to play the stronger players, etc. I was doing everything I could to "manipulate" the system to drive up my handicap. Primarily, I was trying to improve and play my best. Managing players skill levels is a critical job of a captain. That means clearly and completely avoiding cheating, such as ever having a player miss on purpose, lose on purpose, etc. Sometimes a player drops unexpectedly, and sometimes this happens very late in a session. Why on earth, if your roster allows, would you not sit that person out until playoffs, and then see if you can win without them, and delay their use until the last possible moment. If for example someone on my team goes up from a 3 to a 4, and I don't think they are a very good 4, I'm going to play them against difficult competition. If they win, great we get more points and maybe they grow into their new skill level. If they lose, maybe they drop back down. That's a win win really. If my standings and rankings for the session allow that, why on earth would t I try to gain the most possible advantage for my team within the rules.

For some (ignorant) people, "manipulation" only has a negative connotation. This in fact is not true however. A quick visit to the dictionary shows this. Some distinction here should have been made between "manipulation" and cheating. It is actually unclear if you believe all manipulation is cheating, or wrong.

Sorry, but this post I'm replying to is another example of APA league operators showing that logic is an extremely rare commodity in that position. Very frustrating because I do like the APA league for what it could be.

KMRUNOUT

Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

Here you go, from dictionary.com:

manipulation
noun
1. the act of manipulating.
2. the state or fact of being manipulated.
3. skillful or artful management.

manipulate
verb (used with object), manipulated, manipulating.
1. to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings.
2. to handle, manage, or use, especially with skill, in some process of treatment or performance: to manipulate a large tractor.
3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.
4. Medicine/Medical. to examine or treat by skillful use of the hands, as in palpation, reduction of dislocations, or changing the position of a fetus.

If you go to thesaurus.com, you will see that it shows two definitions: (1) verb - maneuver, handle physically, and (2) verb - change to suit one's desire.

When a word has multiple definitions, the context of its use usually determines the definition that applies. When I spoke of manipulation in my original reply, I was referring to manipulation of the Equalizer system. In the context of the post, I think it's pretty clear that the first definition of "manipulate" from dictionary.com and the second from thesaurus.com are the ones that apply - attempts to manage players' skill levels, especially in an unfair manner, to suit one's desires. For anyone who doesn't think that's clear, I'm telling you that's the definition I intended, so it should be clear now. Other definitions of the word are irrelevant in that context.

In your response to that reply, you used the word a totally different way, and I don't think your usage was entirely correct, as it was extremely broad and didn't quite fit any of the definitions above. But I suspect we will probably never agree on that point.

So how does not playing someone you think is better than their number equate to manipulation? By not playing that player, you are intentionally preventing the number from accurately reflecting that player's true ability. Refer to the top of page 35 in the current team manual, which addresses handicap manipulation. In the second paragraph it says "If you think a teammate's skill level is too low for any reason, simply call the League Office and ask them to raise the player's skill level appropriately." The next time that happens will be the first time, but that's how it is supposed to work. You are not supposed to let a skill level stay low, and intentionally sitting them so they stay low goes against that principle.

It is important to understand that I'm only talking about sitting a player SOLELY because you don't want them to go up. There are many reasons why you might sit a player out, but if you're doing it only to keep the number from accurately reflecting their true ability, then you are manipulating the system.

What if you think a player's number is HIGHER than their true ability? Is it ok to put them in a match they will most certainly lose badly, just to make their number "accurate"? I say no, if you have no other reason to play them in that match. You don't get to decide what's accurate, so attempting to "force" a specific result is manipulation, even if you believe the number you are trying to force would be more accurate.

As in the case of sitting the player out, there are also a number of legitimate reasons for playing someone against an opponent who will likely destroy them, many involving the strategy of the other matches. But if you do it simply because your player "needs a bad loss", then you are attempting to make your player appear weaker than they really are, and that is manipulation of the Equalizer system.

I often tell people the best 3 and the worst 4 in the league are the same person. That is, for certain specific players both numbers may be considered accurate. So why do I say it's manipulation when you try to make the system say 3, if 3 is considered accurate? It's because you are trying to force the 3 and PREVENT the system from saying 4, which is also considered accurate. Personally, if I think that's what you are doing, I will be more inclined to help the system say 4 when I get a chance, because those practices make me wonder what else you are doing to influence the numbers.

I couldn't disagree with you more when you say "Managing players' skill levels is a critical job of a captain." Captains manage the roster, the match ups, and other strategic aspects of league and tournament play. They do not manage the skill levels of individual players. That is my job. Specifically, the most important part of my job is to try to get the skill level numbers right. The number should accurately reflect the player's true ability. If you think it doesn't, I want to know that you think it doesn't, and why you think it doesn't (too high or too low, either way). We may disagree, but I still want to know.

I am also not naive. I know when a player is at the top of their skill level range, and I know that player's captain(s) probably know it too. Many times I will notice when you're "saving" one of your players, or when you set someone up to take one for the team. The more often things like that happen, the more likely I am to notice, and the more likely I will be to help that player get to the next level. So by trying to manage the skill level, you as a captain may actually be causing the very thing you are trying to avoid.

When you have a player you consider an "advantage", it is natural to want to save that advantage until you most need it. But keep in mind that as you progress, the stakes get higher and the potential consequences when you finally use that advantage get more and more serious. If you save that player until playoffs, then use them, I might ask "Why did they use this player, when this player hasn't played since week six?". If you get through the playoffs without them and use them in tricups, I may ask myself "Why did this player play in the tricup, when they haven't played since week six and they didn't play in playoffs?". If it's in the World Qualifier, I will not only ask a similar question, but I will also start wondering how the team got this far without having to use this "advantage", then I will do everything I can to ferret out and remove the other "advantages" your team may have. That's my job. To be fair, I will also try to ascertain if there are legitimate reasons why you haven't used your advantage. It gets worse if you make it part way into the World Championships and still haven't used your advantage. Remember, we know the player should be an advantage too. I'm just saying, sometimes it's better not to hide your weapons.

These views are the perspective of an APA league operator, who is tasked with protecting the integrity of the Equalizer handicap system in my area. Perhaps looking at it from that perspective will help you understand the logic of what I'm saying.

lorider · Dec 17, 2017

APA Operator said:
Here you go, from dictionary.com:

manipulation
noun
1. the act of manipulating.
2. the state or fact of being manipulated.
3. skillful or artful management.

manipulate
verb (used with object), manipulated, manipulating.
1. to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings.
2. to handle, manage, or use, especially with skill, in some process of treatment or performance: to manipulate a large tractor.
3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.
4. Medicine/Medical. to examine or treat by skillful use of the hands, as in palpation, reduction of dislocations, or changing the position of a fetus.

If you go to thesaurus.com, you will see that it shows two definitions: (1) verb - maneuver, handle physically, and (2) verb - change to suit one's desire.

When a word has multiple definitions, the context of its use usually determines the definition that applies. When I spoke of manipulation in my original reply, I was referring to manipulation of the Equalizer system. In the context of the post, I think it's pretty clear that the first definition of "manipulate" from dictionary.com and the second from thesaurus.com are the ones that apply - attempts to manage players' skill levels, especially in an unfair manner, to suit one's desires. For anyone who doesn't think that's clear, I'm telling you that's the definition I intended, so it should be clear now. Other definitions of the word are irrelevant in that context.

In your response to that reply, you used the word a totally different way, and I don't think your usage was entirely correct, as it was extremely broad and didn't quite fit any of the definitions above. But I suspect we will probably never agree on that point.

So how does not playing someone you think is better than their number equate to manipulation? By not playing that player, you are intentionally preventing the number from accurately reflecting that player's true ability. Refer to the top of page 35 in the current team manual, which addresses handicap manipulation. In the second paragraph it says "If you think a teammate's skill level is too low for any reason, simply call the League Office and ask them to raise the player's skill level appropriately." The next time that happens will be the first time, but that's how it is supposed to work. You are not supposed to let a skill level stay low, and intentionally sitting them so they stay low goes against that principle.

It is important to understand that I'm only talking about sitting a player SOLELY because you don't want them to go up. There are many reasons why you might sit a player out, but if you're doing it only to keep the number from accurately reflecting their true ability, then you are manipulating the system.

What if you think a player's number is HIGHER than their true ability? Is it ok to put them in a match they will most certainly lose badly, just to make their number "accurate"? I say no, if you have no other reason to play them in that match. You don't get to decide what's accurate, so attempting to "force" a specific result is manipulation, even if you believe the number you are trying to force would be more accurate.

As in the case of sitting the player out, there are also a number of legitimate reasons for playing someone against an opponent who will likely destroy them, many involving the strategy of the other matches. But if you do it simply because your player "needs a bad loss", then you are attempting to make your player appear weaker than they really are, and that is manipulation of the Equalizer system.

I often tell people the best 3 and the worst 4 in the league are the same person. That is, for certain specific players both numbers may be considered accurate. So why do I say it's manipulation when you try to make the system say 3, if 3 is considered accurate? It's because you are trying to force the 3 and PREVENT the system from saying 4, which is also considered accurate. Personally, if I think that's what you are doing, I will be more inclined to help the system say 4 when I get a chance, because those practices make me wonder what else you are doing to influence the numbers.

I couldn't disagree with you more when you say "Managing players' skill levels is a critical job of a captain." Captains manage the roster, the match ups, and other strategic aspects of league and tournament play. They do not manage the skill levels of individual players. That is my job. Specifically, the most important part of my job is to try to get the skill level numbers right. The number should accurately reflect the player's true ability. If you think it doesn't, I want to know that you think it doesn't, and why you think it doesn't (too high or too low, either way). We may disagree, but I still want to know.

I am also not naive. I know when a player is at the top of their skill level range, and I know that player's captain(s) probably know it too. Many times I will notice when you're "saving" one of your players, or when you set someone up to take one for the team. The more often things like that happen, the more likely I am to notice, and the more likely I will be to help that player get to the next level. So by trying to manage the skill level, you as a captain may actually be causing the very thing you are trying to avoid.

When you have a player you consider an "advantage", it is natural to want to save that advantage until you most need it. But keep in mind that as you progress, the stakes get higher and the potential consequences when you finally use that advantage get more and more serious. If you save that player until playoffs, then use them, I might ask "Why did they use this player, when this player hasn't played since week six?". If you get through the playoffs without them and use them in tricups, I may ask myself "Why did this player play in the tricup, when they haven't played since week six and they didn't play in playoffs?". If it's in the World Qualifier, I will not only ask a similar question, but I will also start wondering how the team got this far without having to use this "advantage", then I will do everything I can to ferret out and remove the other "advantages" your team may have. That's my job. To be fair, I will also try to ascertain if there are legitimate reasons why you haven't used your advantage. It gets worse if you make it part way into the World Championships and still haven't used your advantage. Remember, we know the player should be an advantage too. I'm just saying, sometimes it's better not to hide your weapons.

These views are the perspective of an APA league operator, who is tasked with protecting the integrity of the Equalizer handicap system in my area. Perhaps looking at it from that perspective will help you understand the logic of what I'm saying.

Thanks for a very insightful and thought provoking post. I would venture to say some of the matching up I have done could fall under your definition of handicap management but not to the extent in the example you described.

I have never had a secret weapon that I played only the minimum matches or held out of playoffs intentionally. I used to keep stats on all my players and kind of had an idea when some might be close to going up. I quit doing that about a year ago due to it being too time consuming and not worth the hassle.

In my view a captain has the responsibility to match up to give his team the best shot at reaching tri cups and hopefully ltc's . In order to do that you have to reach ....and then win playoffs. My philosophy has always been to play my best players. In order to reach playoffs you sometimes have to have some lopsided wins during the session to stay in contention. I did that by matching up a decent 5 against weak 4's and sometimes 3's. The Las week of the session he took it upon himself to go against a weak 3 to offset his 17-3 loss against a good 6. Well he skunked that 3 and as a result he was raised to a 6.

Yes I know he one match did not make him a 6. However all those lopsided wins against 3's and 4's all session long added up. This happened the week before playoffs.

Playing double jeapordy playoffs vs 2 different teams the matchups did not go in my favor and i had to play my newly raised 6 vs another 6 and my guy lost 18-2 and cost us a shot at tri cups. The following week he gets lowered to a 5 again. So ....did I really manipulate his handicap by throwing him against a 6 the week before playoffs ? If he had not went behind my back and threw himself in a replay bs a 3 that night he never would have been raised that week.

He started his own team the following session so I will.never know if I was really manipulating his handicap. I did learn he was recently dropped to a 4 in 8 ball. I always thought that was where he belonged but what do I know lol.

Upon reflecting on it a little more. Maybe I did manipulate this person's handicap to the extent both he and the equalizer system thought he was better than he actually was lol. I gotta say it did get tiresome hearing him brag all the time about having the best win % on the team. He never could get it through his head it was due to how I matched him up even after I told him as much.

WillyCornbread · Dec 18, 2017

APA Operator said:
Here you go, from dictionary.com:

manipulation
noun
1. the act of manipulating.
2. the state or fact of being manipulated.
3. skillful or artful management.

manipulate
verb (used with object), manipulated, manipulating.
1. to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings.
2. to handle, manage, or use, especially with skill, in some process of treatment or performance: to manipulate a large tractor.
3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.
4. Medicine/Medical. to examine or treat by skillful use of the hands, as in palpation, reduction of dislocations, or changing the position of a fetus.

If you go to thesaurus.com, you will see that it shows two definitions: (1) verb - maneuver, handle physically, and (2) verb - change to suit one's desire.

When a word has multiple definitions, the context of its use usually determines the definition that applies. When I spoke of manipulation in my original reply, I was referring to manipulation of the Equalizer system. In the context of the post, I think it's pretty clear that the first definition of "manipulate" from dictionary.com and the second from thesaurus.com are the ones that apply - attempts to manage players' skill levels, especially in an unfair manner, to suit one's desires. For anyone who doesn't think that's clear, I'm telling you that's the definition I intended, so it should be clear now. Other definitions of the word are irrelevant in that context.

In your response to that reply, you used the word a totally different way, and I don't think your usage was entirely correct, as it was extremely broad and didn't quite fit any of the definitions above. But I suspect we will probably never agree on that point.

So how does not playing someone you think is better than their number equate to manipulation? By not playing that player, you are intentionally preventing the number from accurately reflecting that player's true ability. Refer to the top of page 35 in the current team manual, which addresses handicap manipulation. In the second paragraph it says "If you think a teammate's skill level is too low for any reason, simply call the League Office and ask them to raise the player's skill level appropriately." The next time that happens will be the first time, but that's how it is supposed to work. You are not supposed to let a skill level stay low, and intentionally sitting them so they stay low goes against that principle.

It is important to understand that I'm only talking about sitting a player SOLELY because you don't want them to go up. There are many reasons why you might sit a player out, but if you're doing it only to keep the number from accurately reflecting their true ability, then you are manipulating the system.

What if you think a player's number is HIGHER than their true ability? Is it ok to put them in a match they will most certainly lose badly, just to make their number "accurate"? I say no, if you have no other reason to play them in that match. You don't get to decide what's accurate, so attempting to "force" a specific result is manipulation, even if you believe the number you are trying to force would be more accurate.

As in the case of sitting the player out, there are also a number of legitimate reasons for playing someone against an opponent who will likely destroy them, many involving the strategy of the other matches. But if you do it simply because your player "needs a bad loss", then you are attempting to make your player appear weaker than they really are, and that is manipulation of the Equalizer system.

I often tell people the best 3 and the worst 4 in the league are the same person. That is, for certain specific players both numbers may be considered accurate. So why do I say it's manipulation when you try to make the system say 3, if 3 is considered accurate? It's because you are trying to force the 3 and PREVENT the system from saying 4, which is also considered accurate. Personally, if I think that's what you are doing, I will be more inclined to help the system say 4 when I get a chance, because those practices make me wonder what else you are doing to influence the numbers.

I couldn't disagree with you more when you say "Managing players' skill levels is a critical job of a captain." Captains manage the roster, the match ups, and other strategic aspects of league and tournament play. They do not manage the skill levels of individual players. That is my job. Specifically, the most important part of my job is to try to get the skill level numbers right. The number should accurately reflect the player's true ability. If you think it doesn't, I want to know that you think it doesn't, and why you think it doesn't (too high or too low, either way). We may disagree, but I still want to know.

I am also not naive. I know when a player is at the top of their skill level range, and I know that player's captain(s) probably know it too. Many times I will notice when you're "saving" one of your players, or when you set someone up to take one for the team. The more often things like that happen, the more likely I am to notice, and the more likely I will be to help that player get to the next level. So by trying to manage the skill level, you as a captain may actually be causing the very thing you are trying to avoid.

When you have a player you consider an "advantage", it is natural to want to save that advantage until you most need it. But keep in mind that as you progress, the stakes get higher and the potential consequences when you finally use that advantage get more and more serious. If you save that player until playoffs, then use them, I might ask "Why did they use this player, when this player hasn't played since week six?". If you get through the playoffs without them and use them in tricups, I may ask myself "Why did this player play in the tricup, when they haven't played since week six and they didn't play in playoffs?". If it's in the World Qualifier, I will not only ask a similar question, but I will also start wondering how the team got this far without having to use this "advantage", then I will do everything I can to ferret out and remove the other "advantages" your team may have. That's my job. To be fair, I will also try to ascertain if there are legitimate reasons why you haven't used your advantage. It gets worse if you make it part way into the World Championships and still haven't used your advantage. Remember, we know the player should be an advantage too. I'm just saying, sometimes it's better not to hide your weapons.

These views are the perspective of an APA league operator, who is tasked with protecting the integrity of the Equalizer handicap system in my area. Perhaps looking at it from that perspective will help you understand the logic of what I'm saying.

For what it's worth, this view seems to far off from reality that I can't even take it seriously. APA should be celebrating anyone who doesn't sandbag or actually purposefully lose games, because it's a problem and pervasive - and THAT is the reason that captains even have to try and "manipulate" matchups and sit players.

Even with that, my teams barely have a chance because we don't actively dump games. I'm just trying to manage the timing of my player going up because he is getting better, while everyone around me is managing their players and games themsevles to stay where they are forever or even go down...

b

lorider · Dec 18, 2017

WillyCornbread said:
For what it's worth, this view seems to far off from reality that I can't even take it seriously. APA should be celebrating anyone who doesn't sandbag or actually purposefully lose games, because it's a problem and pervasive - and THAT is the reason that captains even have to try and "manipulate" matchups and sit players.

Even with that, my teams barely have a chance because we don't actively dump games. I'm just trying to manage the timing of my player going up because he is getting better, while everyone around me is managing their players and games themsevles to stay where they are forever or even go down...

b

I think your ...every ne else observation is a little off. What few times I have played people from other area the players seemed to be playing at the level their handicaps suggest. There were a few exceptions though with few being the key word.

In my area I would venture to guess I suspect less than 3 % to be sandbaggers. Notice I said suspect....every one has good days and bad days. Also not every one can play great under pressure ...at tri cups etc. Some such as myself seem to relish the pressure and pls up to their potential.....as a result they are called sandbaggers

WillyCornbread · Dec 18, 2017

lorider said:
I think your ...every ne else observation is a little off. What few times I have played people from other area the players seemed to be playing at the level their handicaps suggest. There were a few exceptions though with few being the key word.

In my area I would venture to guess I suspect less than 3 % to be sandbaggers. Notice I said suspect....every one has good days and bad days. Also not every one can play great under pressure ...at tri cups etc. Some such as myself seem to relish the pressure and pls up to their potential.....as a result they are called sandbaggers

This is definitely not my experience at the local and the regional level. I'd say that easily 1/3rd if not more of the players actively sandbag, and in fact rarely even try to hide it or be graceful about it.

When I don't personally sandbag or have my team do the same, it is met with utter disbelief by everyone else, to the point where I'm beginning to be known as a dumb captain. On many occasions if I'm beating the other teams high level players (I'm a 6) I'm reminded by them "You know I'm a seven, right?" etc.

It doesn't bother me as much as this post might indicate, I'm just explaining the reality and the notion that the only way I can give my team a slight chance is to be smart about who I matchup and when. I don't think this should be considered handicap manipulation...

Enjoying the discussion...

b

APA Operator · Dec 18, 2017

WillyCornbread said:
For what it's worth, this view seems to far off from reality that I can't even take it seriously. APA should be celebrating anyone who doesn't sandbag or actually purposefully lose games, because it's a problem and pervasive - and THAT is the reason that captains even have to try and "manipulate" matchups and sit players.

Even with that, my teams barely have a chance because we don't actively dump games. I'm just trying to manage the timing of my player going up because he is getting better, while everyone around me is managing their players and games themsevles to stay where they are forever or even go down...

b

Oh, watching for those things is also part of my job. That's just not the part my posts in this thread were about. When someone is dumping, I (1) see it on the score sheets and in they database, and (2) hear about it. Like I said, I'm not naive. There are cheaters in my league, there are cheaters everywhere, and all we can do is everything we can to catch them or prevent them from prevailing. I was young once, and I played all those games. Now I'm on the other side. I like to think there are way fewer actual sandbaggers than other people think, but I don't think there are zero. Not in my area, not in any APA area.

In my area, however, there's no such thing as "acceptable" manipulation. In the egregious, obvious sandbagging cases, if I have a good suspicion you will see skill levels go up, and if I actually get the goods on you then you're gone. But that doesn't mean the "minor" manipulators shouldn't also be handled.

All I can do is my part, try to protect my area. If you don't think the operator in your area is doing his/her part, let the APA know. They do keep tabs on us. Member complaints don't always result in direct action (for the same reason that there are more sandbagger complaints than there are actual sandbaggers), but they want to know which of us are doing our jobs and which of us aren't.

maha · Dec 18, 2017

if its all about winning then do what it takes to win. but if you work the system to win dont complain when someone else finds a better way and does it to you and call them sandbaggers or cheaters.

but think about why most players are on the team. they also want to play. and forfeiting a match isnt in their best interests only yours, as team captain who wants the recognition. most people want to go to bat. and not take a bunt for the team. they may not admit it to you, but that is why they are there.

justadub · Dec 18, 2017

lorider said:
I think your ...every ne else observation is a little off. What few times I have played people from other area the players seemed to be playing at the level their handicaps suggest. There were a few exceptions though with few being the key word.

In my area I would venture to guess I suspect less than 3 % to be sandbaggers. Notice I said suspect....every one has good days and bad days. Also not every one can play great under pressure ...at tri cups etc. Some such as myself seem to relish the pressure and pls up to their potential.....as a result they are called sandbaggers

I also feel that the cry of "APA is full of sandbaggers" doesn't really apply in my area very much, either. I think your 3% estimate may very well apply for us too. We have between 100 and 150 players depending on the session, between 8 and 9 ball, and I can only think of a couple that I might even suspect of it.

The "manipulation" discussion has been interesting, and I always enjoy APAOperator's viewpoints. I'm sorry to say that I don't feel like I'm cheating if I choose who my player is playing for any number of reasons, so long as I'm still playing them regularly. (The hiding of a player, only playing them a few matches and such....yeah, that crosses the line.) All my players play at least every other week, unless there is a situation come up to prevent them attending (work, illness, travel issues, stuff just happens) and I do not want anyone to ever throw a match. So if we are all trying to win every match, it shouldn't matter who I choose to have them play, or for what reasons.

People "throw off" all the time, for strategic reasons. Sacrificing a weaker player against a super tough player. Is that cheating, too? I don't feel that it is. (Nor do I "throw off" very often, during the session, but that's a whole other discussion.)

Coop1701 · Dec 18, 2017

justadub said:
I also feel that the cry of "APA is full of sandbaggers" doesn't really apply in my area very much, either. I think your 3% estimate may very well apply for us too. We have between 100 and 150 players depending on the session, between 8 and 9 ball, and I can only think of a couple that I might even suspect of it.

The "manipulation" discussion has been interesting, and I always enjoy APAOperator's viewpoints. I'm sorry to say that I don't feel like I'm cheating if I choose who my player is playing for any number of reasons, so long as I'm still playing them regularly. (The hiding of a player, only playing them a few matches and such....yeah, that crosses the line.) All my players play at least every other week, unless there is a situation come up to prevent them attending (work, illness, travel issues, stuff just happens) and I do not want anyone to ever throw a match. So if we are all trying to win every match, it shouldn't matter who I choose to have them play, or for what reasons.

People "throw off" all the time, for strategic reasons. Sacrificing a weaker player against a super tough player. Is that cheating, too? I don't feel that it is. (Nor do I "throw off" very often, during the session, but that's a whole other discussion.)

I have been watching this thread. Your words are spot on justadub, for my area too. I enjoy playing APA. I don't feel like it's full of sandbaggers. I do feel like some league operators play with the numbers just to mess up certain teams. You are going to have people on all ends of the spectrum. You are going to have players like me that want to get better. The way we judge that is looking at our ranking. You are going to have some that play under their ability all the time. You are also going to have some people that are going to be lifetime 3's or 4's. It's social night for them. They play.. win great, lose it's okay because I am drinking with my friends.

Anyway.., APA with all it's plus and faults. It's going to be around for a long time. I don't have any issues with it's issues. I play and my team plays. We never get anyone to lay down. But as justadub said. We have put players in situations we knew they would not win. I don't think that's wrong.

lorider · Dec 18, 2017

APA Operator said:
Oh, watching for those things is also part of my job. That's just not the part my posts in this thread were about. When someone is dumping, I (1) see it on the score sheets and in they database, and (2) hear about it. Like I said, I'm not naive. There are cheaters in my league, there are cheaters everywhere, and all we can do is everything we can to catch them or prevent them from prevailing. I was young once, and I played all those games. Now I'm on the other side. I like to think there are way fewer actual sandbaggers than other people think, but I don't think there are zero. Not in my area, not in any APA area.

In my area, however, there's no such thing as "acceptable" manipulation. In the egregious, obvious sandbagging cases, if I have a good suspicion you will see skill levels go up, and if I actually get the goods on you then you're gone. But that doesn't mean the "minor" manipulators shouldn't also be handled.

All I can do is my part, try to protect my area. If you don't think the operator in your area is doing his/her part, let the APA know. They do keep tabs on us. Member complaints don't always result in direct action (for the same reason that there are more sandbagger complaints than there are actual sandbaggers), but they want to know which of us are doing our jobs and which of us aren't.

Like dub stated I also enjoy reading your posts. I will admit at one time I probably cried sandbagger a lot lol. However over time I came to the realization of one thing you stated in your first post.... A good 3 plays as good as a weak 4. Once I realized that my complaints to my league operator slowed down. I also came to realize that all players of any level had certain strengths and weaknesses which led to having players that were weak...average or strong for their level.

I also realize that league operators must get a lot of complaints all the time and mud weed out what is a gripe because some one lost from the ones that may have a legitimate gripe. Over the years most people that I had complained about were raised at one point or another. I don't think it was due to my complaint as much as they were actually on the threshold of being raised anyway.

Over the last couple of years I have only brought a few people to the attention of my league operator and I think he kind of pays attention to what I say. He asks pertinent questions as to why I believe what I say and I respond with legitimate reasons and not just say well they did not play like a 4 or whatever last night. I respond by mentioning cue ball control...safety play...pattern selection or whatever I may have noticed that the average person at that skill level should not be that adept at...in my opinion of course lol. Another thing I have brought to his attention a couple of times is attempts by certain individuals in falsifying scoresheets.

I feel if every one made an honest attempt to bring legitimate observations to their league operator about issues in their area and I dont mean just cry sandbagger because someone had a real good night it would help curb what cheating and sandbagging does go on.

I know for a fact that people have complained about me more than a few times and I can understand why. I sometimes have some crazy good games and others are crazy bad games and i wish it was not that way.

Several reasons that happens.

1. My mental game. Some nights I just dont have it. Not trying to give a sob story but over the last few years my personal life has done a complete 180 from what it was and it has affected me.

2. Physical disability in my shooting hand. Some days it feels better than others but it will never feel normal again.

3. Work. I have a labor intensive job...actually pretty physically demanding some days. Some days I may be running a jackhammer all day. The next I may be hauling concrete up 2 ramps out of a basement . The next I may be making a dozen trips up 3 flights of stairs carrying a 100 pound gas iron pipe on my shoulder each trip. The next I may not be doing much of anything. On a day I have been carrying pipe all day I am liable to be wore out and it will show in my match like the other week when I lost to a 4 by 16-4. On a day like last Thursday when the hardest thing I did was cut 6 inches off a plastic pipe and put a cap on it. That night I beat an 8 by 15-5. Any one comparing those 2 matches would think I am a sandbagger.....not to mention dozens more just like those.

I think my league operator does a great job and I would not want the headaches of putting up with a bunch of whiners like I know I used to be lol.

KMRUNOUT · Dec 18, 2017

This will need to be 2 posts. What you said was very long, and I would like to reply to most of it.

Ok. I said I would discuss it, so I will do what I said. Your lengthy reply is in essence exactly what you said before. Only difference is that now you have provided addition things that I disagree with. I will do my best to reply, but I'm beginning to fear this will be a waste of time, as I'm not seeing any attempt on your part to frame a structured rational argument. The statement we are discussing is this: "Is it wrong to intentionally forfeit a player?" In order to answer that question, we need some definitions. I'm not talking about dictionary definitions, and I'm a bit disappointed that you assumed I was. I'm talking about logical definitions: establishment of mutually agreed upon premises. If you don't know what that means, please say so instead of wasting a lot of time looking in the dictionary and such.

APA Operator said:
Here you go, from dictionary.com:

manipulation
noun
1. the act of manipulating.
2. the state or fact of being manipulated.
3. skillful or artful management.

manipulate
verb (used with object), manipulated, manipulating.
1. to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings.
2. to handle, manage, or use, especially with skill, in some process of treatment or performance: to manipulate a large tractor.
3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.
4. Medicine/Medical. to examine or treat by skillful use of the hands, as in palpation, reduction of dislocations, or changing the position of a fetus.

If you go to thesaurus.com, you will see that it shows two definitions: (1) verb - maneuver, handle physically, and (2) verb - change to suit one's desire.

When a word has multiple definitions, the context of its use usually determines the definition that applies. When I spoke of manipulation in my original reply, I was referring to manipulation of the Equalizer system. In the context of the post, I think it's pretty clear that the first definition of "manipulate" from dictionary.com and the second from thesaurus.com are the ones that apply - attempts to manage players' skill levels, especially in an unfair manner, to suit one's desires. For anyone who doesn't think that's clear, I'm telling you that's the definition I intended, so it should be clear now. Other definitions of the word are irrelevant in that context.

This wasn't unclear in the first place. However, we can agree that we are talking about the 1st verb definition for "manipulate". However, leaving it at that is leaving it where it was in the first place. The critical next step is to address the phrase "especially in an unfair manner". This means that manipulation *always* means "to manage or influence skillfully", but only sometimes means "in an unfair manner". Hopefully you see that any definition you choose does not specify whether you mean "in an unfair manner" in any particular use of the word. I pointed this out to you previously.

APA Operator said:
In your response to that reply, you used the word a totally different way, and I don't think your usage was entirely correct, as it was extremely broad and didn't quite fit any of the definitions above. But I suspect we will probably never agree on that point.

Here you are simply mistaken. I used the word in *exactly* the way described above. I meant exactly definition 1 of the verbs, however in my case I did *not* imply the "especially in an unfair manner" secondary aspect of the definition. If you consult your quote from the dictionary, you will obviously see that, and also that this use is perfectly correct. Sort of like "manipulating a fork well enough to get the food into your mouth".

APA Operator said:
So how does not playing someone you think is better than their number equate to manipulation? By not playing that player, you are intentionally preventing the number from accurately reflecting that player's true ability.

You claim this, but offer no basis for the claim. I don't set the player's handicap. The Equalizer system does. I believe the Equalizer system works well when used properly. I have no reason to believe that if the computer generates a skill level for a player on my team, that this is anything other than their true ability. The Equalizer system is founded on data, not a lack of data. Providing data to the system that is forged, such as my failing to mark safe shots or missing on purpose, losing on purpose, etc. all would be crystal clear examples of an attempt to LIE. My contention is that if your actions LIE about a player's ability, you have done wrong. If your actions tell the truth about a players ability, then you most likely have not done wrong.

APA Operator said:
Refer to the top of page 35 in the current team manual, which addresses handicap manipulation. In the second paragraph it says "If you think a teammate's skill level is too low for any reason, simply call the League Office and ask them to raise the player's skill level appropriately." The next time that happens will be the first time, but that's how it is supposed to work. You are not supposed to let a skill level stay low, and intentionally sitting them so they stay low goes against that principle.

It sounds here like you are trying to play both sides of the fence here. See, I can either trust the Equalizer system to work as designed, or not trust it. If I have a player with a long time established skill level, and knowing that I mark every inning, every safe shot, and all my players shoot every ball like their life depended on it, then I know that they are ranked properly. The phrase "let a skill level stay low" is nonsensical in this context. I don't let them stay anything...they are ranked what they are ranked. Many players are on the cusp between skill levels. They may be a great 3 or a not so good 4. If the last week of the season the not so good 4 happens to drop to a 3, why should I conclude anything other than that the correct skill level for that person at that time is 3? And if that is the truth, then I would prefer that person play at their *accurate* skill level 3 the following week in playoffs if at all possible. The ability to field a roster without that player is one way in which that is possible.

APA Operator said:
It is important to understand that I'm only talking about sitting a player SOLELY because you don't want them to go up. There are many reasons why you might sit a player out, but if you're doing it only to keep the number from accurately reflecting their true ability, then you are manipulating the system.

It is important to understand that whatever number I see on the score sheet *IS* that player's true ability. You seem to completely fail to recognize that it is equally valid (and I would contend *more* valid) to view the situation as sitting the player is for the purpose of making sure the number accurately reflects their true ability. It is very rare that a person's skill level goes up on my team and I think they are a good example of the next skill level. We actually had a 2 in 8 ball improve and start winning, after years of losing. a few things clicked for her. She went up to a 3, and it seemed reasonable. She had become a better player. In most cases, that isn't the case at all.

APA Operator said:
What if you think a player's number is HIGHER than their true ability? Is it ok to put them in a match they will most certainly lose badly, just to make their number "accurate"? I say no, if you have no other reason to play them in that match. You don't get to decide what's accurate, so attempting to "force" a specific result is manipulation, even if you believe the number you are trying to force would be more accurate.

Again, you are playing both sides of the fence here. If I have a player go up, say from a 3 to a 4, and I don't think they are a very good 4, then I am indeed likely to put them into difficult matches. As you know, simply losing will not likely move someones skill level down. As you know, they would have to lose over and over, and more importantly in innings worse than 4 level. The losses required to bring that persons skill level down would be more than offset by the many points we would give away over the course of a season. Who cares what skill level your players are if you are in last place? The purpose from my perspective of putting the player in difficult matches, for example against a good 4 or a 5, is that if they *truly* are a 4, then they may step up and do well and win. Great for my team. Or, they may play like the 3 the truly are, do poorly, and lost, possibly even going back down to a 3. Also good for my team. It is simply a test, putting them to the fire so to speak, to allow competition to determine their skill level. Playing honestly, marking everything correctly, and trying hard on every shot, the truth will come out. If you are not seeing this, then this conversation is hopeless.

APA Operator said:
As in the case of sitting the player out, there are also a number of legitimate reasons for playing someone against an opponent who will likely destroy them, many involving the strategy of the other matches. But if you do it simply because your player "needs a bad loss", then you are attempting to make your player appear weaker than they really are, and that is manipulation of the Equalizer system.

At no time did I ever say anything like "my player needs a bad loss". I never think like that. I think my player needs an outcome that reflects their true ability.

APA Operator said:
I often tell people the best 3 and the worst 4 in the league are the same person. That is, for certain specific players both numbers may be considered accurate.

I wonder if you recognize how this statement undermines most of what you have argued here.

(continued)

KMRUNOUT · Dec 18, 2017

(continued)

APA Operator said:
So why do I say it's manipulation when you try to make the system say 3, if 3 is considered accurate? It's because you are trying to force the 3 and PREVENT the system from saying 4, which is also considered accurate. Personally, if I think that's what you are doing, I will be more inclined to help the system say 4 when I get a chance, because those practices make me wonder what else you are doing to influence the numbers.

No. The Equalizer system is based only on positive data. What didn't happen is not part of the system, regardless of your wishes. I didn't play Shane Van Boening 10 times this session, and I probably would have lost, so please enter in 10 losses for me. See the absurdity of that? Your last remarks sound very disturbing. You are allowing your own personal bias and flawed logic to corrupt your handicaps in that case. So much wrong with that statement it really is deeply disturbing. "If you think that's what I'm doing?" Based on what you said, you sound likely to make many wrong assumptions about things like this. I would not like to play in an area where the league operator does this sort of thing. Watch the players. See how they play. That is the only reliable way to know the truth, and even then it can be murky if you are not a highly skilled player. The idea of making an assumption based on another assumption is really the pinnacle of irrationality. I would hope yu get your facts straight about a particular situation before you feel the need to "help the system", which actually works just fine without your help. Finding out if the system is being followed correctly by marking all shots safes and innings would be a critical first step.

APA Operator said:
I couldn't disagree with you more when you say "Managing players' skill levels is a critical job of a captain." Captains manage the roster, the match ups, and other strategic aspects of league and tournament play. They do not manage the skill levels of individual players. That is my job.

Actually, done correctly, that is NOT your job. Your job is making sure it is done correctly. It is the Equalizer system's job to make sure people are handicapped correctly. And um, all the things you listed as jobs of a captain directly influence the skill level of the player. As I stated in my initial reply to you, managing players skill levels means choosing the skill levels from my roster to meet the array of situations my team faces. I do not mean that I try to make a player's skill level any particular number. Only that based on what the number is at that time, and my evaluation of the players actual skill relative to that number, I will utilize that player to the greatest benefit of my team.

APA Operator said:
Specifically, the most important part of my job is to try to get the skill level numbers right. The number should accurately reflect the player's true ability. If you think it doesn't, I want to know that you think it doesn't, and why you think it doesn't (too high or too low, either way). We may disagree, but I still want to know.

Ok, but you already mentioned how it can simultaneously be true that a player is accurately ranked a 3, or accurately ranked a 4. Either of those numbers could accurately reflect their true ability. Most people understand the idea that it is easier to win a match as a 3 than as a 4, so all things being equal, as you claim they are, I'd rather my player play as a 3 than a 4.

APA Operator said:
I am also not naive. I know when a player is at the top of their skill level range, and I know that player's captain(s) probably know it too. Many times I will notice when you're "saving" one of your players, or when you set someone up to take one for the team. The more often things like that happen, the more likely I am to notice, and the more likely I will be to help that player get to the next level. So by trying to manage the skill level, you as a captain may actually be causing the very thing you are trying to avoid.

Thus far you have failed to establish a moral principle that "saving your player" violates. If you put together all the things you've said, you will recognize this.

APA Operator said:
When you have a player you consider an "advantage", it is natural to want to save that advantage until you most need it. But keep in mind that as you progress, the stakes get higher and the potential consequences when you finally use that advantage get more and more serious.

Not logical. If one match would raise them, then they will get raised when they win. They may lose. Maybe you save them and when the moment comes, they stink and lose badly? Maybe they win. Maybe they go up. It is best not to worry about the handicaps in that way if you are playing honestly. Thing is, you seem to be totally avoiding the concept that a captain could be totally wrong about a player. Maybe they are not on the line at all. We don't know this. You do. Making assumptions about the captains motivations based on info you have and they don't introduces a huge bias for you. It is a common logical error people make to imagine underhandedness because of something they know, that the other person has no knowledge of, yet the illogical person assumes the other person is motivated as if they *did* know what they do not know. Bottom line, if I am playing honestly, I have nothing to worry about if my league operator is also playing honestly.

APA Operator said:
If you save that player until playoffs, then use them, I might ask "Why did they use this player, when this player hasn't played since week six?". If you get through the playoffs without them and use them in tricups, I may ask myself "Why did this player play in the tricup, when they haven't played since week six and they didn't play in playoffs?". If it's in the World Qualifier, I will not only ask a similar question, but I will also start wondering how the team got this far without having to use this "advantage", then I will do everything I can to ferret out and remove the other "advantages" your team may have. That's my job. To be fair, I will also try to ascertain if there are legitimate reasons why you haven't used your advantage. It gets worse if you make it part way into the World Championships and still haven't used your advantage. Remember, we know the player should be an advantage too. I'm just saying, sometimes it's better not to hide your weapons.

Again, deeply disturbing. Maybe they made it that far without the "advantage" as you say because the rest of their roster is handicapped very accurately. Maybe all the other players are above average for their skill level. Maybe the player who is "saved" is mediocre at their higher level and great at the lower level. Maybe you don't play them because you need the points your better players can generate. Wondering why is fine and good, I'd recommend any LO keep their eye on things and wonder things like this. However, taking action based on "wondering" would be fundamentally wrong. You need to find out the answers to the things you are wondering. You need to not make highly biased assumptions based on what you might do given what you know in a given situation. People are complex, and you are foolish if you think you have the inside track on every decision a human being makes. I've had a LO raise a player on my team who was a 2 going into tricups. She played the match of her life and went up to a 3. The following weekend, it came down to match 4, with match 5 being sudden death. The other team had a 3 and a 6. I am a 7. I played my 2 now 3 in match 4, because they put up the 3. We needed to win both matches. She played great and won, I won. They moved her to a 4. The explanation given was "you wouldn't put a 3 in a do or die situation, you must really know she's a 4". Two weeks before, this girl was a 2. She is a TERRIBLE 3. Never even remotely close to a 4. Talk about absurd logic, and assuming things of others that are based on his own foolish reasoning. We had no choice. Need to win both matches. Obviously I'd rather myself play the 6. This is an example of a LO assuming the reasoning of someone else based on what he might do in the same situation. I think my reasoning is very very different than his might be.

APA Operator said:
These views are the perspective of an APA league operator, who is tasked with protecting the integrity of the Equalizer handicap system in my area. Perhaps looking at it from that perspective will help you understand the logic of what I'm saying.

I think (hope) you meant to say that you protect the integrity of the *implementation* of the Equalizer system in your area. And without question what you have said has helped me to further understand why you believe your positions are logical. If you don't understand where your logic breaks down, I may be able to explain further. However, I doubt you are in a position to change your beliefs.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your perspective.

KMRUNOUT

KMRUNOUT · Dec 18, 2017

One last thing:

APA Operator, I will point out that I applaud the determination to police skill levels. This is one of the APA's biggest problems. However, I would hope your efforts could be dedicated to where they matter: sandbaggers who lie by not keeping score properly, missing on purpose, losing on purpose. The APA is a league with rules. There are rules against sandbagging. There are not rules against sitting a player for any reason at all.

When all is said an done, you, like me and all APA players, must follow the rules. We can't make up the rules, or act on what we *wish* the rules were. However, we can certainly voice our opinions of changes we would like to see in the rules.

I would be most impressed if your efforts were dedicated to what the rules *are*, as far as your desire to manipulate the handicaps of the players in your area, rather than on what you wish the rules were. God knows the APA certainly pushes that idea hard in most any discrepancy I've ever talked about with anyone.

Thanks again,

KMRUNOUT

WillyCornbread · Dec 18, 2017

What KM said

APA Rules Question - Intentional Forfeit

AzB Silver Member

AZB deceased - stopped posting 5/13/2022

Banger McCue

Banger McCue

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Break and One

AzB Silver Member

Break and One

AzB Silver Member

from way back when

Rattling corners nightly

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Break and One