...Second, in your zeal to try to stick words in peoples' mouths, be sure to read the original post thoroughly before doing so. You'll notice NOWHERE did I ever use the words/phrases "brainwash," "conspiracy theories," setting you up to call you a "liar," etc. I never even alluded to brainwashing or conspiracy theories of any kind, but knowing what goes on in these threads (one of the reasons why I usually don't participate in them), I can see why these words/phrases roll off your tongue like water.
I'm not sticking words in your mouth there, Sean. I said "the practice of using terms like...". I lumped your term (excuse-in-a-can) with the rest. Are you going to deny that YOU called it "drivel" and part of a "facade"? I believe the correct interpretation of those words in this context are:
drivel - foolish or senseless talk
facade - a front or outer appearance, esp a deceptive one
Are you saying that you did not intend to refer to my reason for the 23 rule as foolish or senseless deception? If so, please tell me what you actually intended with the words "drivel" and "facade", because it sure reads like you're calling me (or APA Corporate) a liar. If it's APA Corporate, that brings into play the "brainwashing" and "Kool-Aid" references, since YOUR words surrounding "drivel" and "facade" would then imply that they are deceiving ME.
The only issue I pointed out in your whole post (and you'll notice I did a HUGE amount of "[...]" snipping in it), was the one point about the "reasons" given for the existence of the 23 rule...
So, before you start painting me with the same broad brush that you use to paint the "anti-APA" crowd, I ask you to be more thorough when you read / reply to posts.
Oh, gee, I didn't even notice that you only offended me in reply to just a tiny portion of my post. I guess it's ok then.
Everything I wrote was in direct reply to something you wrote. I don't get what you mean by "be more thorough".
When you say you're a second-generation L.O., that to me means someone that is still in the field -- i.e. you're not physically working at the APA Corporate HQ offices. If that's the case, respectfully, you are not privy to what goes on in those offices. By saying that, am I saying there's a "conspiracy" going on there because you're not physically there? No. What I'm saying is that unless you've worked in corporate HQ-level offices -- as I have, nearly all of my working life (30+ years) -- you have no idea what the highest-level management is discussing ...
In other words, what I'm trying to say is that, as a regional-level person, you have NO IDEA what goes on in an HQ-level office. It is much different than what goes on in the field. Field people may *think* they know what goes on, but it only skins the surface...
Now having said that, if you *do* work in the APA corporate HQ, obviously my words don't apply to you specifically.
I'm not a virgin to the corporate world. In addition to my career as a league operator, I spent 20 years in another career, which included working in corporate headquarters of some pretty big companies. I'm aware of what goes on there.
I'm also pretty in-touch with what happens in APA's corporate offices, although I do not work there. By "in-touch" I don't mean I THINK I know what goes on. I mean I'm directly involved in some of it. So no, I don't believe those words apply to me specifically. Do the words "drivel" and "facade" still apply to me? I ask because you did specifically attribute the term "excuse-in-a-can" to me.
...As for you claiming that noone has ever asked you to give canned answers to questions, you can't rationally claim that. You are told all the time to give canned answers, just as any corporation does. It's called the rule book. It's called the bylaws. It's called the company policy. There are other documents by other names, but you get my meaning here... You ... probably honestly think noone is telling you to give canned answers. But you are doing it all the time, without realizing it. Merely by following company policy. By being a representative of your company, you are giving those canned answers, all day long. If you didn't (or if you were a conscientious observer / didn't believe them), you wouldn't be working there. It's that simple.
Just so I'm clear, are you now saying canned answers are necessary and not a bad thing? I ask because I could *SWEAR* that a couple of posts ago you called what you THINK is one of them "drivel" and part of a "facade".
Did I get your attention? Good. A little comedic license was used for the purposes of clarification by exaggeration.
No, you got my attention when you said I was speaking drivel.
Your version of this assumes (or alludes to) foul play on the part of the lower skill-level player. My version does not.
Actually, mine doesn't either. Players can sometimes be under-rated when there has been no foul play. Specifically, in any handicap system where the handicap is based on a measurement of recorded performance, the performance MUST happen before the measurement will reflect it. Therefore, EVERY player who has ever gone up on their own (the vast majority of them) was under-rated before the system caught up with them.
Wait a minute. You seem to be mixing and matching 9-ball and 8-ball. I was only talking about 8-ball in that hypothetical situation...
I wasn't mixing the two, I was anticipating the response of others who certainly would have pointed out that the scoring in 9-Ball changes the strategy of the player and would equate that with APA changing the game of 9-Ball. My reference to 9-Ball was a pre-emptive statement that it's not the same as what would happen in your imaginary scenario. Your scenario would actually change the rules of 8-Ball, while the 9-Ball scenario only changes the strategy.
You seem to make the following assertions:
1. That not all "3"s play at the same skill level.
2. That not all "7"s play at the same skill level.
If that's true..., then what makes you think that team of "super 7s" (as you call it) will dominate the league? The inherent "scalability" (or variability) of the differences in skill level at the "7" level also extends downward into the lower skill levels. So the same variability you find in "7"s, can also be found in 3s/4s/etc. If a team can be "stacked" with strong 7s, why can't a team of "super 4s" be created that nullify the "stacked 7s" domination? I'm thinking it's already being done.
There are an infinite number of players and a finite number of skill level "buckets". Of course there will be some degree of variance in every bucket. The difference between the 7's and every other bucket is that the players in the other buckets "splash" into the next bucket when they become "super". So your "super 4s" will eventually become "mediocre 5's". Long-term, the only group of "supers" that can dominate is the 7's.
Oh, struck a nerve, I see. So proposing a hypothetical scenario and a way to solve it (and using a concrete example where this scenario actually solved a problem, as I did with the Boston Billiards league), to you, is "saying anything one wants without having to stand behind it"? ...
Not really. I was referring to the exchange you had with LeagueGuy, who challenged your "solution". You excused yourself in post #28. I see that as not having to stand behind your words. If you would like to actually defend that "solution" here, by all means please do. I gave you a hypothetical scenario where it breaks down - the ball's in your court now.
With regard to your Boston Billiards example, yep, it worked there, given the people involved and the duration of it's existence. I contend (and openly admit that I have no concrete evidence for any of this) that its success may have been due to other mitigating factors:
1) Maybe it just wasn't in place long enough for the "super" group to form.
2) Maybe there wasn't enough incentive for a "super" group to form. What was to be won?
3) Maybe there was something more important to the "super" group (a weekly tournament, perhaps) that happened at the same time as the Boston Billiards league, and the "super" group simply made a choice.
I'm sure there are others, but I hope this is enough to get the point across. As you said, your group was tiny compared to the APA, so it shouldn't be too hard to imagine that the mitigating factors would not be factors in many APA areas.
First, I never mentioned actually manipulating the highest skill level ratings of the APA (i.e. I never mentioned altering the max of "7" in 8-ball or "9" in 9-ball). There you go sticking words in my mouth again.
I didn't say you said that. I said it could be done. You should be more thorough when you read and respond to posts.
Second, the idea of a handicap system with no individual maximum skill level is patently RIDICULOUS. *Of course* there would be many, many issues with this, not the least of which would be match races and times.
By RIDICULOUS, do you mean impossible, or do you mean impractical? Impossible I disagree with - all you need is one bucket per player and a way to map the buckets onto a race curve. If you mean impractical I remind you that this is a hypothetical scenario where a time stagnation device is involved. Of course it's impractical (at least until such a device comes into existence, then LOTS of things become practical).
I've stated this before -- ... One can be too good to play in the APA handicapped leagues, and then it becomes time to take the training wheels off. The solution to dealing with players getting too good, is not to extend or manipulate the maximum individual handicap level itself, but to recognize when a player is too good. The APA already does this...
"Too good" is a very slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? There will always be someone who is better than everyone else, and there will always be people who say that person is "too good" to be in the league.
If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be implying here that instead of a team handicap limit, APA should just exclude individual players. That won't solve the issue of dominant teams. The practicality issues of my hypothetical scenario prevent races from being a 50-50 proposition WHENEVER there's a difference in skill levels, not just when there's a "super 7" involved. Using empirical data from matches already played, you can actually generate the probability that a random 6 will beat a random 4. Using these probabilities and the distribution of skill levels throughout the league, you can calculate the probability that a random 6 will beat a random player of unknown skill level. Using this probability for each of the different skill levels, you can calculate the number of matches a given five-player combination can be EXPECTED to win each week. All that remains is to define what value of EXPECTED wins is too much (dominance). For example, a combination that is expected to win four of five matches a week is probably dominant. Fortunately, the only combination that can expect four wins is five 7's (I know, I've done the study). There are plenty of combinations that can expect more than three wins a week, though. What would you consider dominant? 3.5 (70%)? 3.25 (65%)? 3 (60%)?
The reason I mention all of this is to demonstrate to you that the 23-rule isn't something the APA just thought up to make money. There is some math behind it, math involving statistics and expected values.
)
ROFLMAO
