Lost another one. I don't like the score, but I have no idea what happened.
Remember:
[1] At least 3 players need to get a mention.
[2] No more than 10 votes for any one player.
[3] Give a rating of team performance. It can be anywhere from A+ to F.
[4] Votes must add up to 15.
5 Buckley
4 Curnow
3 White
2 Bell
1 Kreuzer
5 bucks
4 doc
3 Kruezer
2 curnow
1 murph
Team E
5: Buckley
5: White
4: Docherty
1: Kruezer
White 5
Buckley 3
Kruez 2
Docherty 2
Bell 1
Murphy 1
Cripps 1
Team C
Team = C
Buckley 3
Docherty 3
White 3
Bell 2
Murphy 2
Tutt 1
Simpson 1
Team D
5 - Buckley
4 - Docherty
3 - White
2 - Kreuzer
1 - Bell
Same names every week, what an indictment on the group.
Pretty sure Buckley, Docherty and White weren't dominating last week and isn't this a votes only thread?
Pretty sure Buckley, Docherty and White weren't dominating last week and isn't this a votes only thread?
Mainly. The arguments are supposed to be on the post game threads and the like. But comments do appear: I am the worst offender. But I feel I always need to explain my thinking. I don't mind if others justify their thoughts, but it does make things more difficult to correlate when you have to wade through a heap of arguments.
Team - D
5 - White
4 - Buckley
3 - Docherty
2 - Curnow
1 - Bell
Mainly. The arguments are supposed to be on the post game threads and the like. But comments do appear: I am the worst offender. But I feel I always need to explain my thinking. I don't mind if others justify their thoughts, but it does make things more difficult to correlate when you have to wade through a heap of arguments.
I think the comments alongside the votes are fine, more questioning the votes of others.
I think the comments alongside the votes are fine, more questioning the votes of others.
Isn't the Prof questioning the performance of those players that don't score votes rather than the performance of voters?
I'm still thinking about my votes. Using the 5 4 3 2 1 system does throw up some issues ???
Team: D
5 - Curnow
4 - Murphy
3 - Bell
2 - White
1 - Docherty
Isn't the Prof questioning the performance of those players that don't score votes rather than the performance of voters?
I'm still thinking about my votes. Using the 5 4 3 2 1 system does throw up some issues ???
The 5 4 3 2 1 voting system is the easiest for my to enter, but I find that it doesn't give me an opportunity to give votes to as many players who may deserve a mention or to grade them sufficiently. But I am the extreme case. Others follow it rigidly: the other extreme.
I don't care as long as the votes add up.
The 5 4 3 2 1 voting system is the easiest for my to enter, but I find that it doesn't give me an opportunity to give votes to as many players who may deserve a mention or to grade them sufficiently. But I am the extreme case. Others follow it rigidly: the other extreme.
I don't care as long as the votes add up.
I used to apportion votes out to as many players as I thought worthy Crash but I changed to the 5 4 3 2 1 voting system several seasons ago. I like the discipline of selecting five players even if it is a close thing between fifth, sixth and seventh best or the length of the straight between fourth and fifth.
I thought it would be easier to process too :)
Team. C
5. White
4. Docherty
2. Curnow
2. Buckley
1. Murphy
1. Bell
Team C-
3 - Buckley
3 - Docherty
2 - Curnow
2 - Murphy
2 - White
1 - Bell
1 - Kreuzer
1 - Tutt
Team - D
5 - White
4 - Murphy
3 - Docherty
2 - Buckley
1 - Bell
Team C
6 White
4 Buckley
3 Docherty
2 Murphy
Team D
4: White
4: Murphy
3: Buckley
2: Kreuzer
2: Docherty