[dmp] wrote:If its easy to define active, why is it hard to define inactive?
Because nobody plays 24 hours a day - everybody is "inactive" from time to time. Do you want to punish everybody for being inactive while sleeping? I imagine not.
Turning it upside down: You want to call a team active forever, as soon they played their first game. I doubt that is what you want
So, active can be defined by some rules (eg. 1 match in the past 7 days). And inactive would be "the rest" (all teams that does not meet this rule)
For our purpose (reward, punish a team) we dont care how active or how inactive they are. So indeed its boolean for this purpose. Either we reward active team sor not. Or the alternative. either we punish inactive teams or not. And I belive that the two is the same in our case.
If everyone earns $100 and you want to have $50 more than your mate. We got two solutions:
- Get rewarded: You get $50 more.
- Punish everyone else: All us poor souls needs to pay a 50%-goblin tax. Leaving us with $50.
Both approaches will make you 50$ richer than everyone else. The same would be true for team points for being inactive / active.
As stated before, you'll have to decide when to call a team inactive. And you'll have to decide on the level of inactivity. It's much easier to decide when people are active, since activity means action, and actions can be measured instantly.
Unless you figure that a team can only be active during a match, then you'll need to define for how long they are active without performing any new actions. And once they cannot meet being active.. They're inactive. No need to see how active or how inactive they are, in order to reward/punish teams.
I can't see why it's so important to you that inactivity is punished instead of rewarding activity
That isnt my point. My point is, that pointwise these two are(can be) equal. Rewarding teams for doing something good for the league, is more positive, than punishing inactive teams.
However, in an elo-score wise-context, I would prefer punishing inactive teams. Let's say that ELO score is correct. The less the team plays, the more likely it is, that the ELO score is wrong when they begin to play again (people get rusty, other teams improves). (Its like saying: "We have no clue how they play now, but I'll bet its bad")
It makes more sense to remove elo scores from these teams than reward active teams ("active teams? Then they MUST be good"). For active teams, we can look at the results and see how they perform.
In other words; We need to decide: What is the better. To overrate active teams, or to underrate inactive ones. As the active teams are out there playing and can get an accurate elo score, why break it. When they lose a match they will lose more points (because of the reward) compared to what a not-so-active team will (even if they're equal in skill)
If inactive teams are punished for inactivity, it would mean that we're unsure if the elo is correct and therefore we under-rate them. When they play again - the elo score is wrong. But will hopefully readjust itself quickly as they play against stronger (elo-point wise).
What do you prefer yourself:
Go to work, or we'll kick you in the crutch
Go to work, and we'll pay you money
Last placed I worked at, I got both. And then I left - so now I get nothing.
But we agree what the words means. My arguments is only in the context of points to teams.
I don't need huge pictures here.