Summary of Issues/Positions

[SportChick]

Apparently, I've maxed out the allowable posting size. I will probably be forced to start posting the summary in pieces from here on out.

Here is the legend for player color coding:

Player Color Legend:
League Player
DLC Member
DLA Member

[SportChick]

No Votes at this time

[SportChick]

Expired: Match Length
15 Minute matches have been implemented in addition to 30 minute matches. For more information, read the announcement.

1. Allow the option of 15 minute matches in addition to 30 minute matches.(Admirarch)
For: More matches can be played. Matches between uneven teams will be less frustrating. Could lead to more competitive matches since many teams' concentration tends to slip in the second 15 minutes of a match. (Admirarch)
For: People are busy. Why can't we have two match lengths to choose from? (quantum dot)
For: Allow shorter matches if team strengths are different or if the teams mutally agree. (wizard)
For: Teams should just be able to agree in advance on whether to play a shortened match. (quantum dot)
For: Scores could be normalized for shortened matches by using a proportional forumla. (goblin)
For: It is hard to guarantee I can play for a full 30 minute match. (TD-Linux)
For: 20/30 matches would be better, but point distribution is an issue (Zongo)

For: More activity is and should be the goal of this proposed change. (Xell)
Against: It could cause contention if the teams can't decide whether to match for 15 or 30 minutes. Match scores become meaningless. (Admirarch)
Against: 15 minute matches should be permitted as fun matches, but not for officials because it could affect the outcome of the match.(tokimi)
Alternative: 20 minute matches might be a better alternative than 15 minute matches. (TheRedBaron)
Against: Upping activity by cutting match length is an illusion. It doesn't matter what match length we select, but it should be one, fixed length. (mistake)
Against: We don't need options - there are plenty already - just go to another league. We need to make ducati unique and attractive. (mistake)

2. An offer to do a statistical comparison between 15-20-30 minute matches. (tokimi)


Expired: Cap Limits

5. There should be a 10 cap limit on matches. (Zongo)

For: If the research is right, this would prevent a lot of frustration. (bamf.)
For: From all angles this looks like a good idea. (Admirarch)
For: Agreed, however, make it 10 caps with a 2 cap lead to ensure fairness. (SportChick)
For: This prevent new teams from being slaughtered by such huge margins. (Xell)
For: A cap limit shouldn't be needed, but obviously is. Prefer a cap limit with a 2 cap margin. (CBG)
Alternate: Set a lower cap limit of between 6 and 9. Alternate clarification Not a hard cap, but a point difference.(sussi)
Against Alternate: If the cap limit is too low, you risk games ending prematurely and unfairly. (tokimi)
Against Alternate: Prefer a cap limit with a minimum spread of 2 caps. (CBG)

Expired: Seasonal Ladder


1. Use an alternate scoring system (similar to the one used for the 1v1 league and tournaments) to the ELO. ELO is a good tool to rate the skill level of a player/team, but not the performance. (mistake)
Specifically, use a Seasonal Ladder with a Hall of Fame and an overall ELO rating. (mistake)
For: Rewarding teams for activity instead of punishing for inactivity is a huge advantage of this system. (SportChick)
For: ELO measures skill not performance. Perhaps raw wins, losses, ties would work better.(longhair)
For: This idea seems to be the most suited to our needs, with minor comments (season length, slightly different point distrubution for wins, etc.) (Admirarch)
For: A Seasonal Ladder with Hall of Fame is the way the 1v1 league has been running quite successfully. He thinks it is very well suited to the ducati league. ELO is not really important. 1pt for loss, 2 for draw, 4 for win would work. (Zongo)
For: This is good. The 1v1 tourney generates a lot of interest. (kierra)
For: The best way to increase activity is to have tournament (seasonal) style play. (longhair)
For: The seasonal ladder works, but keep ELO at all costs (in addition to using the seasonal ladder). (Admirarch)
For: In the 1v1 tournaments, he's found it useful to take a break in between seasons (Zongo)
For: Created a monthly ladder to show what it could look like. (Xell)
For: Use a simple point system - +1 for win, 0 for tie, -1 for loss. (t2m)
For: In order to encourage teams to match, a 4-2-1 formula would be better. (CBG)
For: Rewarding activity instead of punishing inactivity is more likely to increase activity. (goblin)
Neutral: Likes the ELO system, but doesn't think it needs to be the primary ladder that is used. Instead, make an activity ladder more prominent. (wizard)
Against: Prefers to maintain the ELO ratings in order to gauge his team's strength. (longhair)
Rebuttal: The ladder would be supplemental to ELO, not a replacement. (mistake)
Alternate: Maintain a ladder that shows only the last three month's activity (rather than closing out the season completely). (wizard)
Against Alternate: A rolling ladder does not make much sense. A seasonal ladder would be better. (Admirarch)

[SportChick]

Activity Issues:

1. Every team must match every other team twice per month. Penalty for failure to match a team: 50 points per team. (mistake)
Against: Teams should have the right to decide who to match. (birdie)
Against: If one team is willing and available, they should not be penalized if the other team fails to match. (menotume)
Against: There are some teams people don't want to match simply on principle. (kierra)
Against: People play bz for fun, and shouldn't be forced to play teams they don't like or think are nice, etc. (quantum dot)
Against: This will more likely discourage activity. (bamf.)
Against: Teams should be able to match who they want, when they want. (Mur)

2. Teams should be discouraged from teaming up/merging (to avoid matching one another). (mistake)
Query: Is this really a problem? (bamf.)

3. Inactive team members should be removed from the team (suggests "inactive" means having not played a match in 4 months). (mistake)
Neutral: Long-term inactive players are definitely an issue and need to be dealt with somehow. (kierra)
Against: Let the team captain decide when/if to remove members. (birdie)
Against: There is no logistical way to tell who has or hasn't matched in a specific period of time.(menotume)
Against: Not a good idea to tell people who they can and can't have on their team. Often "inactive" players come back. (bamf.)

4. Teams may not reject a match unless they have already matched the requesting team on that day or played two matches on that day. (mistake)
Against: Teams should have a right to reject a match, for whatever reason. (birdie)
Against: Teams should be able to match who they want, when they want. (Mur)

5. Inactive teams should lose points until they reach 0, and then be deleted.(Ares)
For: Decreasing scores over time is a good idea. Finding a definition of "inactive" that reflects the current state of the league shouldn't be too difficult. (Admirarch)
For: It rewards activity and allows active teams to climb in the rankings. (quantum dot)
For: All teams should lose 4 points a week for not playing and become "inactive" when they drop below 100 points. All players should automatically be kicked from inactive teams. & it cannot regain active status. (sussi)
For: Look at it more as aging of scores. All teams should lose points over time. (sussi)
For: [dmp]'s argument about rustiness proves my point - we should adjust ELO to award points for activity and delete points for inactivity. (sussi)
Neutral: Activity is the most important aspect in a league (Thonolan)
Against: This might make some of the older, inactive teams disappear completely.(tokimi)
Against: This means that a team that hasn't matched since long will have a low rating, though they still might be hard to beat. (mistake)
Against: In this way, only active teams can climb up in the rankings and inactive teams have no motivation. (Xell)
Against: This would kill activity completely. People DO have a life outside of bz. (longhair)
Against: Inactivity shouldn't be reflected in rankings and score. (birdie)
Against: Reward activity, don't punish inactivity (Zongo)
Against: Activity is important, but punishing inactivity will drive away players. (Xell)
Against: Removing all players from an inactive team and deleting the team does not seem fair. (tokimi)
Against: ELO is the most accurate way to judge a team's strength. Don't change it! (longhair)
Against: Rewarding activity instead of punishing inactivity is more likely to increase activity. (goblin)
Against: There are too many reasons for players to not play at a given time. Do not penalize them or take away points. Reward activity instead. (tokimi)
Against: Forcing people to do something won't work. (mistake)
Against: "Rewarding for activity" is actually the same things as penalizing for inactivity - just with a different spin. (longhair)
Against: I understand wanting to keep ELO, but why not offer other alternatives in addition? (mistake)
Against: Rewarding activity and punishing inactivity are quite different - both from the standpoint of implementation and psychology. (goblin)
Against: Regardless of the activity/inactivity debate, the fact remains that teams already are rewarded/punished for activity/inactivity by whether the players are "rusty". ([dmp])
Against: Mixing things such as skill & activity, etc. creates randomness to the indicator. (smalltux)

6. Reduce permitted team size to 6, for example, which would allow teams to remain more compact and provide for more teams. (tokimi)

7. Arranging matches can be difficult. Publishing IM contact details or running a jabber server would be great. (sussi)
Alternate: Try using strayer's site or irc. Link to strayer's (gilly)
For Alternate: Those sites are good. (Xell)

8. I am working on an in-game, cross-server communication ("GPS"). Initially, I want to keep it simple, but more features can be added later ([dmp])
For: GPS looks great! (mistake)
For: Wow! When will it be done? (CBG)
For: Maybe you could incorporate the ChatChannel Plugin (CBG)
Neutral: We need to encourage server owners to install this plugin (and others) & be sure they are thoroughly tested first. (tokimi)

9. Teams should be able to match without speaking to a team leader. Team leaders should not dictate who their team can/should play. (sussi)
Against: It is not DLC's job to regulate how team captains manage their teams. ([dmp])
Against: Teams should have the right to decide who they want to match. (mistake)
Against: DLC should not try to regulate how team captains manage their teams. Players can leave if they disagree. (SportChick)
Against: The league should interfere a little as possible with the management of the teams. Players are free to leave. (Xell)
]Against: Leave the teams free to manage themselves. (Talisman)
]Against: The council shouldn't get involved in the teams. Besides, enforcement would be nearly impossible. Players can walk if they don't like their captain's policies. (goblin)


ELO-related changes:

1. Provide an "activity factor" which would be multiplied by a team's score, and teams would be listed by the product of the score x activity factor. Open issue is how the activity factor would be calculated.([dmp])
For: This would change top ranking camping, but would still allow a team to regain its status if it becomes active again.(tokimi)
For: It is better to reward activity rather than punish inactivity and this seems to be a good method for it. (Xell)
For: An activity factor is a good way to provide a bonus to an active team. Increased activity would allow bonus points to be awarded to the active team. (coincoin)
Against: The rating will be an arbitrary value of which we won't be sure what it means. (mistake)
Against: The ELO doesn't seem to work well in situations where teamscores are secondary when matching, and not necessarily when score or competition is the goal either. So activity factor wouldn't make much sense. ([dmp])
Against: ELO is the most accurate way to judge a team's strength. Don't change it! (longhair)

2. Use a player-based ELO instead of team-based. Each player would have an ELO (which could change only by matching). A team's ELO would be the average of all its players' ELOs. For each match, the actual ELO of the players playing would determine the point change. There are definitely positive and negative aspects to this system. ([dmp]) An additional downside is that a team could retain highly ranked inactive players to increase its ELO. (Admirarch)
Example: The problem with ELO is that it calculates the probability for one team to win. If the team with high probability wins, the reward is smaller. However if the team with low probability wins, they get a big reward. There is a single ELO for each team, even though the probability of a team winning depends on which specific players play in the match. Under the current system, a team wins a fixed number of points, regardless of who plays (e.g., if two teams who have 1400 points play each other, the winning team gets 25 points, no matter whether they field equal players or stong v. weak players), even though it would seem more fair that if weaker players win against stronger players, it would seem as if they should get more points. The proposal is to begin rating every player and make changes to team score based on the rating of the actual players who play a match. For example, if two new players (each with ELO of 800) play against two old players (with ELO of 1400), the result would be different: rather than 25 points to the winning team, no matter who wins, if the old players win, they get 2 points. If the new players win, they get 48 points. If they tie, then the new players would get 23 points. Please read the topic for an excellent, detailed explanation. ([dmp])
For: This is a feasible idea, but would require a server plugin to manage the information. (Chestal)
For: ELO SHOULD represent the skill of a team, but right now it does not. ([dmp])
For: Great example. I like the proposal. (chtibidasse)
For: The idea sounds good in general. I'd like a detailed discussion fo what makes up individual ELO and how it would be affected by various factors. (CapN)
Neutral: While there are certainly issues (both technical and practical) with this idea, it's worth considering. (Admirarch)
Query: How does cap score link to this proposal? (Chtibidasse)
Query Response: Caps and individual performance are not factored in - only the match's outcome (Chestal)
Against: CTF is a team game - don't change to player-based ELO (birdie)
Against: CTF is a team game. If players want individual ratings, let them play in the 1v1 league. (Xell)
Alternate: Use personal ELO, but calculate point gain/loss by player ELOs. Team ELOs would be constant - adjusted only by matching, even if a player leaves. (sussi)
For Alternate: Using personal ELOs to change a team score sounds good. (Admirarch)
For Alternate: Since CTF is about teams, the team score should reflect the matches, not the players. (smalltux)

3. New teams (of uncertain strength) earn ELO differently - ELO is exchanged between teams that play a match (Team A would get Team B's ELO and vice versa). (wizard)
For: The new team should have no rating at all until it completes a few matches. Then their ELO will be estimated and their opponents will receive/lose points accordingly. (Chestal)
Alternate: Handle the newer teams by changing the k-factor from 10 to a higher number (so ELO isn't effected too greatly) until a certain milestone is reached. ([dmp])

4. Modify current ELO to take into account point differences. (menotume)
For: This method is uded for 1v1 and would work with ducati too. (Pimpinella)
For: Perhaps give a team extra points for a large victory. (sussi)
Neutral: A cap limit would be an absolute necessity with this type of system. (Admirarch)
Neutral: The 1v1 zelo rating currently takes point difference into account. However, allowing a winning team to lose points is a bad idea and should not be permitted. (Zongo)
Against: This would encourage highly disparate scores. (Xell)
Against: This would seem to discourage teams from using newer, weaker players. Also some players (e.g., BaR) would need to change their playing style. (mistake)
Against: This would encourage teams to max out their points (to a cap limit) as quickly as possible. (SportChick)
Against: If varied match times are adopted, this creates even more problems. (tokimi)
Against: Keep it simple. Focus on the ladder, but keep a simple ELO. (Zongo)
Against: ELO is the most accurate way to judge a team's strength. Don't change it! (longhair)
Query: Does the proposed ZELO use actual caps or caps ratio? (mistake)
Query Response: Straight cap difference is easier to understand and less problematic, however, cap ratio might make more sense in timed matches (1v1 matches automatically end at 10). (Pimpinella)
Query: How will teams know what they need to change their rating? (mistake)
Query Response: It should be easy to predict. (Pimpinella)
Query: If shorter matches are permitted, how will this work? (mistake)
Query Response: If cap ratios are used, this is easy to solve. (Pimpinella)
Query: What happens if previously unreported matches are added later? (mistake)
Query Response: This could be problematic. (Pimpinella)

5. A team should receive at least 24 points for a win. Teams earn 1 point for match, win or lose. All teams lose 4 points a week (sussi)

Other Scoring/Team Ranking/Tournaments/Seasons:


1. Use an alternate scoring system (similar to the one used for the 1v1 league and tournaments) to the ELO. ELO is a good tool to rate the skill level of a player/team, but not the performance. (mistake)
Specifically, use a Seasonal Ladder with a Hall of Fame and an overall ELO rating. (mistake)
For: Rewarding teams for activity instead of punishing for inactivity is a huge advantage of this system. (SportChick)
For: ELO measures skill not performance. Perhaps raw wins, losses, ties would work better.(longhair)
For: This idea seems to be the most suited to our needs, with minor comments (season length, slightly different point distrubution for wins, etc.) (Admirarch)
For: A Seasonal Ladder with Hall of Fame is the way the 1v1 league has been running quite successfully. He thinks it is very well suited to the ducati league. ELO is not really important. 1pt for loss, 2 for draw, 4 for win would work. (Zongo)
For: This is good. The 1v1 tourney generates a lot of interest. (kierra)
For: The best way to increase activity is to have tournament (seasonal) style play. (longhair)
For: The seasonal ladder works, but keep ELO at all costs (in addition to using the seasonal ladder). (Admirarch)
For: In the 1v1 tournaments, he's found it useful to take a break in between seasons (Zongo)
For: Created a monthly ladder to show what it could look like. (Xell)
For: Use a simple point system - +1 for win, 0 for tie, -1 for loss. (t2m)
For: In order to encourage teams to match, a 4-2-1 formula would be better. (CBG)
Neutral: Likes the ELO system, but doesn't think it needs to be the primary ladder that is used. Instead, make an activity ladder more prominent. (wizard)
Against: Prefers to maintain the ELO ratings in order to gauge his team's strength. (longhair)
Rebuttal: The ladder would be supplemental to ELO, not a replacement. (mistake)
Alternate: Maintain a ladder that shows only the last three month's activity (rather than closing out the season completely). (wizard)
Against Alternate: A rolling ladder does not make much sense. A seasonal ladder would be better. (Admirarch)

2. Team scores should be cleared at least once per year, if not more often.(Ares)
For: This could be helpful, but perhaps more frequently than once per year would be appropriate.(tokimi)
For: If using a ladder scoring system, a periodic reset makes a lot of sense - he makes a point for 2 month to 2 year resets. (mistake)
For: Prefers a reset 2 times per year. (quantum dot)
For: Closing the season is a good idea, but would prefer once per year (Xell)
For: Clearing teams scores once a year will give lower-ranked teams encouragement, and make higher ranked teams seem less intimidating. (coincoin)
For: This could increase the desire to match. Also with turnover, current players may not have the same players that got the team to its high-ranked position. (kierra)
Against: If other scoring suggestions (such as decreasing the score for inactivity) is implemented properly, this is not necessary. In any event, I don't like it. (Admirarch)
Against: Resetting scores won't fix a flawed system. ELO may not be the right method for us to use.([dmp])
Alternate: Run a parallel rating system - one like we have now, showing the over all rank. The other is reset quarterly or in some interval.(tokimi)

3. New teams would be listed on a separate ladder until they reach a particular milestone (certain number of matches played, etc). (wizard)

4. Create "divisions" for teams, with a point-cut off or some other criteria to advance to the higher division. Divisions would be designed to increase activity and decrease discouragement. Cons: point cut-off, on-the-cusp teams, lack of experience. (CBG)
Against: While this is a good idea, we'd need a good number of active teams for it to work. (tokimi)
Against Alternate: A challenges ladder is similar to this concept, but neither will work well with the current level of activity in the league. (mistake)

5. There should be a 10 cap limit on matches. (Zongo)
For: If the research is right, this would prevent a lot of frustration. (bamf.)
For: From all angles this looks like a good idea. (Admirarch)
For: Agreed, however, make it 10 caps with a 2 cap lead to ensure fairness. (SportChick)
For: This prevent new teams from being slaughtered by such huge margins. (Xell)
For: A cap limit shouldn't be needed, but obviously is. Prefer a cap limit with a 2 cap margin. (CBG)
Alternate: Set a lower cap limit of between 6 and 9. Alternate clarification Not a hard cap, but a point difference.(sussi)
Against Alternate: If the cap limit is too low, you risk games ending prematurely and unfairly. (tokimi)
Against Alternate: Prefer a cap limit with a minimum spread of 2 caps. (CBG)

6. New teams would automatically receive 1 point for each match played. (sussi)

7. Have a periodic tournament with teams created on the fly (so those who are not on a team have a chance to experience matching/teamplay). (longhair)
For: Yes try it! ({janis})
For: It sounds fun. Especially with random draw, 3v3. (CapN)
For: Good idea. (goblin)

[SportChick]

Council Role and Requirements:

1. Council members must match once per week (or once per month) to retain position on the council. (mistake)
For: Council members should be active, playing members. (quantum dot)
Against: There are other ways to measure activity in the league other than "matching" - running a server, providing background support. Activity needs to be defined.(kierra)
Against: Defining activity solely as matching is not a good idea. (tokimi)
Against: Retracts some of his earlier statements & agrees that having a developer and server owner on the council is good, even if they aren't "actively playing". A mixture of people on the council is good. (mistake)

2. Council members should be willing to put forth their opinions in public. (mistake)

3. Council membership should rotate - 1/2 of the members should change every 6 months. (quantum dot)
For: Council members should serve for 1 year and be replaced. (sussi)
Against: The league needs to attract players, not make it harder for them to join/play in the league. Team captains already have most of the rights you suggested; besides, one could simply create a team to earn the rights of a captain. (tokimi)
Against: Rotation for inactivity or cause is good, but otherwise this is a bad idea. (tokimi)
Against: The council will be working as a team, and much rotation would inhibit that. The GU league council operates well without any rotation. (Xell)
Against: This is too often - you lose experience and continuity. Perhaps rotating 1/3 every year would be better. (kierra)

4. The main role is a referring body. The council is the final deciding voice. (quantum dot)
For: Once the restructuring is completed, this is a good idea.(tokimi)

5. Although the council was selected to have most active teams represented, this should be relaxed in the future to favor activity and good behavior. (quantum dot)
Against: The criteria of activity and good behavior are not encompassing enough. (tokimi)

6. The council shouldn't over-regulate. (quantum dot)
Against: The league needs some structure. The current model (a self-constructing system) seems to have failed. (tokimi)

7. Team leaders would nominate potential new council members (or replacements) and the entire league would vote on them. (sussi)
Against: I don't trust the majority of the league to elect a council member. It would become a bureaucratic mess. Let the council (or DLA) handle nominations and any election process. (tokimi)

Player Incentives/Motivation:

1. Provide more information other than just team rankings - player rankings, etc. (slime)
For: Provide rankings/special titles based on number of matches played (to increase activity) monthly, lifetime, etc. (tokimi)
For: Provide special individual acknowledgements as well - MVP, etc.(tokimi)
For: Having a Hall of Fame & MVP is a great idea.(mistake)
For: Having an MVP is a great idea. An MVP could be selected from each match and the one with the most at the end of the season would be the season MVP. (Zongo)
For: Having an MVP & CTF stats for each match (Zongo)

2. Provide a Hall of Fame in different categories (e.g., most games played, held first place the longest, number of times in first place, best over all ranking, etc.).(Ares)

3. Record and maintain a list of which players play in each match. (Admirarch)
For: It is very important to record who played in each match. (Zongo)
For: Include an ability to see stats on players. (sussi)
Under Development: Both [dmp] and mistake are working on plugins and site development to incorporate this concept.

Not Hospitable/Inviting:

1. List match servers on the server list. (Xell)

2. COMPLETED:Increase number of player slots on ducati maps, particularly public servers to allow at least 6 slots per team.(Xell)
For: Agreed! (quantum dot)
Completed: Pimpi put up a 6v6 ducati server at dub.bzflag.org:5157. Thanks Pimpi!!

3. Flame wars/personal attacks on the forums & elsewhere need to be curbed. (tokimi)
For: The abuse happens and needs to be curbed. (Sellotaped to Stupidity)

4. Send new teams/players a personal message to welcome them. (SportChick)
For: From team captains, or even an automated league bzmail on 5th, 10th, match, etc. (tokimi)

5. Send new teams an email describing some basic How-tos of the league. (Xell)

New Teams/Players:

1. Create "Jr. Teams" - teams where all members are new (registered within 6 months. New teams are automatically Jr. teams unless: (1) a player who is "too old" joins, or (2) they reach a particular goal (e.g., playing a certain number of matches). ([dmp])
For: The idea behind a jr. team (for JR DUB) was to create a farm team where the players could play without worrying about score, learn a bit and get better until they are ready to start a team, move on to a more established team, etc. Despite the challenges (listed under "Against" below), it has been fairly successful, as about 30 players are now placed in other teams. (Zongo)
Against: Teams might feel they are being looked "down" upon because they are new. (tokimi)
Against: (This is more "disadvantages than "against"). Running a Jr. Team is very time consuming, particularly if you are already in another team. (Zongo)
Against: (This is more "disadvantages than "against"). You have to manage disappointment, as the players are all very excited at first, but then as some lose interest the motivated players become disappointed when they have no teammates online. (Zongo)
Against: (This is more "disadvantages than "against"). The teamleader should be someone very active, but not involved in another team. (Zongo)
Alternate: Have older teams adopt or mentor newer teams. (SportChick)
For Alternative: It is the duty of the more experienced teams to help newer teams learn. (tokimi)

2. Every established team (at least 6 months old) must recruit a new player every two months, most keep the player for 2 months and match with him/her.(CBG)
Against: Team size would be an issue(SportChick)
Against: It would annoy teams and be more likely to break down existing teams than to build up new ones(Admirarch)

3. New teams should be created by older more experienced players, who then recruit newer players and train them up. But it must be voluntary, not forced.(Admirarch)
For: This method is tried and true, but not really possible to "implement" - the players have to just decide and then go do it. The problem is finding players willing to take on the challenge. (tokimi)
For: I've done this before and would be willing to do it again. (Zongo)
For: This the best way! Other encouragements are getting tips from old players, being welcomed in a team, being told you're improving & sportsmanship in unbalanced matches. (Chtibidasse)

4. Provide a "New Team of the Month" competition/ranking. (tokimi)

5. New teams that reach certain milestones (certain number of matches played, etc.) get special recognition. ([dmp])
For: This is good - provide a forum post or server message, giving the team congratulations.(tokimi)
For: Only add an icon for rank after a team has won its first match. (wizard)

6. Create a How-To wiki for new players and teams. (sussi)
Against: While a wiki might be nice, its effectiveness is doubtful. Experience is better. (tokimi)

7. The league would be a tiered system, where new players have to earn the right to be heard and play on teams. Team leaders would have the power to grant a player "full" rights in the league. (sussi)
Against: The league needs to attract players, not make it harder for them to join/play in the league. Team captains already have most of the rights you suggested; besides, one could simply create a team to earn the rights of a captain. (tokimi)
Against: While this may have merit down the road, let's keep it simple and focus on other issues for now. (Chestal)

8. Add functionality to webleague allowing a player to one-click "apply" for a team (the reverse of a team captain's ability to "invite"). (sussi)
Against: Players already have this through bzmail. (tokimi)

League Format:

1. Make the teams fliud so there is really a player ranking and matches can be arranged with whatever players are available. The results are reported and everything flows back to player stats (similar to the set up of the funleague. (ep_)
For: I have had this idea for a long time, except that ELO would be determined by the outcome of the match, not kills. A server plugin would be required. (Chestal)
Neutral: I tried to do this with the Fun League, which has had sporadic participation. (mistake)

2. Merge the GU League, Pillbox League and Ducati League into a single league, with one over all ladder, plus separate rankings for each play style. (birdie)
For: A single link makes it easier for new players, and there would be more match options. (birdie)
For: Yes there could be problems, but the advantages potentially outweigh them. (CBG)
Against: It would be hard to sort out the teams and also the management, since all three leagues are managed by different people. (birdie)
Against: There is a serious issue in that many people are on a different team for each league. Playing with different people is part of the attraction. (bamf.)
Against: People would have something ELSE to argue over now - what map to use. (CBG)
Against: It is essential to keep distinct teams in each league/subleague. (Admirarch)
Against: Different teams, management and playstyles are all reasons not to do this. Plus the OL is this way - why copy them. (quantum dot)
Against: Ditto what QD said. Why not just create a page that compiles information from all the leagues? (longhair)
Against: People are already polarized in map preferences. Creating super teams would be a nightmare too. (tokimi)
Alternate: Set it up as a single league with subleagues, and separate ladders. You can have separate teams for the subleagues. You could have a single website, league name (ctf league), etc. (Zongo)
Against Alternate: This is really not so different than what we have now, so what's the point?. (CBG)
Against Alternate: If you moved to player-based ELO, this could be interesting, but is probably not worth the trouble for the small benefit. (Admirarch)
Alternate: Keeping the leagues separate but having a single, integrated website could be interesting. (tokimi)
Alternate: Don't force leagues to merge or create superteams, but have a "unified" ladder that "unified" teams can participate in. (wizard)
Neutral Alternate: This could be a way to handle it, but not convinced it is necessary. (tokimi)


Disciplinary Actions:

ProblemThe misbehavior of certain players in the past has gone unpunished. (DarthValou)

1. Make the player who is being disciplined always carry a "shame" flag, making him easier to hit and very noticable. (chtibidasse)
For: Good idea! Add a dunce cap and a clown nose! (goblin)

2. Some disciplinary actions should be taken before ever reaching the council. One level is to inform the team captain, have him/her take action (and if he fails, sanction the entire team). Decide who, where, how long and type of punishment. (goblin)

Core Vision/Issues:

Issue: Most players have left, stopped matching or all joined a single team. (mistake)
Issue: The council can't "save" the league - the players must do it. The effort has already begun with Catay, tokimi & bzi. (Admirarch)
Issue: The average age of players 2-3 years ago was much higher (read: more mature) than it is now. Player incentives must change in order to adapt to the younger players' mentality. (tokimi)
Vision: A league where people play, have fun, make friends and avoid bad-mouthing, vendettas, backstabbing, verbal abuse, boycotts, etc. A league where competition doesn't overshadow relationships. (menotume)
Vision: The league should be fun. However, the council can't change the players' attitudes directly. It must do its best to make the league fun, and then the attitudes will change as a result. (Xell)
Vision: The league would be a tiered system, where new players have to earn the right to be heard and play on teams. Team leaders have the primary source of power and have the right to give new players rights, nominate council members, put issues before the council, along with their current rights. The players would elect the council members, who will have a 1 year term. A majority of teams can force a new election. (sussi)

Other:

1. Leave inactive teams listed on the webleague site. (sussi)
2. Provide a way to receive forum posts on a mailing list instead. [conan]
For: While I agree and like this idea, few people would use it, so it's not worth the effort. ([dmp])
Neutral: If it is a supplement to the forums, fine. If it is a replacement, then no. (birdie)
Against: It would be too hard to manage as a mailing list. (CBG)



Issues for which no solution was offered:

1. The inequity between teams causes many new teams to give up and quit. (slime)