Media Point Change Suggestion

[IamQuailman]

I think we need to do away with 3 or 5pt articles and just make everything 5. Take the discretion out the media coordinator's hands, makes it fair for everyone.

[ballsohard]

I think we need to do away with 3 or 5pt articles and just make everything 5. Take the discretion out the media coordinator's hands, makes it fair for everyone.

I don’t agree with this at all. We need to take away the poorly thought about brackets off of the job.

[IamQuailman]

I think we need to do away with 3 or 5pt articles and just make everything 5. Take the discretion out the media coordinator's hands, makes it fair for everyone.

I don’t agree with this at all. We need to take away the poorly thought about brackets off of the job.

What parameters do you replace it with?

[ballsohard]

I think we need to do away with 3 or 5pt articles and just make everything 5. Take the discretion out the media coordinator's hands, makes it fair for everyone.

I don’t agree with this at all. We need to take away the poorly thought about brackets off of the job.

What parameters do you replace it with?

Remove the team oriented versus league orientation. There’s no reason why a well thought out team centric article should be limited to 3 points. There’s some pretty “phone it in articles” that get 5 bc they’re league centric and some time put in team centric that can only get 3.

After doing it a few years I’d say the following modifications are needed:
- remove 3 point cap on team centric articles
-remove the auto 5 points for posting an article
- remove 5 point cap and place it to 10 points that you can receive on an article.


This way someone can do like tani used to do and update a team website all year and get 10 points.. then do a well thought out article like Todd did and get 10 and fill in the gaps from there.

5 submissions are a lot to get to the cap and frankly relying on volume to get to the cap rewards and rewards low qualities articles imo.

[IamQuailman]

I don’t agree with this at all. We need to take away the poorly thought about brackets off of the job.

What parameters do you replace it with?

Remove the team oriented versus league orientation. There’s no reason why a well thought out team centric article should be limited to 3 points. There’s some pretty “phone it in articles” that get 5 bc they’re league centric and some time put in team centric that can only get 3.

After doing it a few years I’d say the following modifications are needed:
- remove 3 point cap on team centric articles
-remove the auto 5 points for posting an article
- remove 5 point cap and place it to 10 points that you can receive on an article.


This way someone can do like tani used to do and update a team website all year and get 10 points.. then do a well thought out article like Todd did and get 10 and fill in the gaps from there.

5 submissions are a lot to get to the cap and frankly relying on volume to get to the cap rewards and rewards low qualities articles imo.

I like all of that, especially the part of rewarding those longer, more in-depth articles. But my only question is how do you differentiate between a 6pt and 7pt article... or 7 and 9pt article ... or if an article is 3pt-4pt? It puts an onus on the media coordinator to have criteria to qualify for each point increment, no? Or is it purely a judgment call at that point?

[ballsohard]

What parameters do you replace it with?

Remove the team oriented versus league orientation. There’s no reason why a well thought out team centric article should be limited to 3 points. There’s some pretty “phone it in articles” that get 5 bc they’re league centric and some time put in team centric that can only get 3.

After doing it a few years I’d say the following modifications are needed:
- remove 3 point cap on team centric articles
-remove the auto 5 points for posting an article
- remove 5 point cap and place it to 10 points that you can receive on an article.


This way someone can do like tani used to do and update a team website all year and get 10 points.. then do a well thought out article like Todd did and get 10 and fill in the gaps from there.

5 submissions are a lot to get to the cap and frankly relying on volume to get to the cap rewards and rewards low qualities articles imo.

I like all of that, especially the part of rewarding those longer, more in-depth articles. But my only question is how do you differentiate between a 6pt and 7pt article... or 7 and 9pt article ... or if an article is 3pt-4pt? It puts an onus on the media coordinator to have criteria to qualify for each point increment, no? Or is it purely a judgment call at that point?

I think we elect people to make judgement calls and trust they (in the aggregate) make the right calls.and if too many people disagree then you elect someone else to make those calls. This kind of happened before in this position with the 5 on 5 drama.

We have a commissioner who makes these calls. We have people who create new gambling systems on their ideas and judgements. This is just another arm to that. Honestly, someone handing out 6 versus 7 points isn’t that big of a difference. I think when the person elected starts being erratic in their process, you have to ask them why. Questions aren’t a problem, doing things without rationale is (imo).

Also I think we will see some consistency on it.. a poor article 3 points , average 5 and great will 8 and something updated all year 10. I think it’s more about effort and quality than quantity. I don’t think we will see one offs .. like you get 5 you get 6 you get 7.. etc