graeme wrote: Nice bit of subtle subversive advertising there Banditto. At this point not really a ringing endorsement for the status quo. Well now 2 more votes have come in, and no single option can get 6 votes, it is confirmed it is no change. Like it or not my Samsung loving friend, it is what it is.
It is Yokohama who have bought the power of the blue jersey now my non-stereotypical scouser friend! Len posted: ' If Play through the byes options get 6 or more or the double round rounds get 6 or more without the leave as is getting 10.' At present - the play through the byes options have 5 votes, the play double rounds have one vote, the change the # of teams playing finals also have one vote, and the status quo has 8 votes. Some tactical recasting of votes by those who have already voted, or by those yet to vote would lead to a head to head vote. Then you friend Peta may well come into her own.
Len wrote: TerryinBangkok wrote: I said, and I don't mind it being ignored, that there are two issues. The first issue was do coaches want a second chance finals system. That needs to be clarified first. A simple yes or no. Not multiple choice - that only comes in should most coaches want second chance - they may not. I voted for playing two of the byes (using the third for State of Origin). Why? Because it is boring having no action for 3 weeks and we are all effected equally (SC top 10 scores or similar would be good). I am in this to compete, not have a rest. Legitimately any one of the following could be the 'first Issue'; 1. Do coaches want a change from status quo 2. Do coaches want a 2nd chance final 3. Do coaches want to move the finish earlier so as to 'avoid resting' 4. Do coaches want both 2 and 3 I don't see how singling out point 2 is any more or less democratic than singling out any of the other options, for this reason and without ignoring anyone's input (I hoped) I have setup something that will give a reasonably fair chance for any result without requiring a full blown democratic process. I also voted for change.. but as I have stated on a number of occasions I don't think change is going to win, and based on current polling only needs another 3 votes to probably kill off the idea, again. Sorry, forgot about the inherent entertainment value in this exercise.
TerryinBangkok wrote: Len wrote: TerryinBangkok wrote: I said, and I don't mind it being ignored, that there are two issues. The first issue was do coaches want a second chance finals system. That needs to be clarified first. A simple yes or no. Not multiple choice - that only comes in should most coaches want second chance - they may not. I voted for playing two of the byes (using the third for State of Origin). Why? Because it is boring having no action for 3 weeks and we are all effected equally (SC top 10 scores or similar would be good). I am in this to compete, not have a rest. Legitimately any one of the following could be the 'first Issue'; 1. Do coaches want a change from status quo 2. Do coaches want a 2nd chance final 3. Do coaches want to move the finish earlier so as to 'avoid resting' 4. Do coaches want both 2 and 3 I don't see how singling out point 2 is any more or less democratic than singling out any of the other options, for this reason and without ignoring anyone's input (I hoped) I have setup something that will give a reasonably fair chance for any result without requiring a full blown democratic process. I also voted for change.. but as I have stated on a number of occasions I don't think change is going to win, and based on current polling only needs another 3 votes to probably kill off the idea, again. Sorry, forgot about the inherent entertainment value in this exercise. I prefer the term engagement, but yeah
graeme wrote: It is Yokohama who have bought the power of the blue jersey now my non-stereotypical scouser friend! Len posted: ' If Play through the byes options get 6 or more or the double round rounds get 6 or more without the leave as is getting 10.' At present - the play through the byes options have 5 votes, the play double rounds have one vote, the change the # of teams playing finals also have one vote, and the status quo has 8 votes. Some tactical recasting of votes by those who have already voted, or by those yet to vote would lead to a head to head vote. Then you friend Peta may well come into her own. Didn't realise we could change votes after they were casted, that is very Peta like I read it differently my friend... the first post says 'Given there are a range of options if any single change option gets more than 6 votes ' not group of options
Bandit wrote: graeme wrote: It is Yokohama who have bought the power of the blue jersey now my non-stereotypical scouser friend! Len posted: ' If Play through the byes options get 6 or more or the double round rounds get 6 or more without the leave as is getting 10.' At present - the play through the byes options have 5 votes, the play double rounds have one vote, the change the # of teams playing finals also have one vote, and the status quo has 8 votes. Some tactical recasting of votes by those who have already voted, or by those yet to vote would lead to a head to head vote. Then you friend Peta may well come into her own. Didn't realise we could change votes after they were casted, that is very Peta like I read it differently my friend... the first post says 'Given there are a range of options if any single change option gets more than 6 votes ' not group of options Graham has it correctly, apologies for any lack of clarity, I thought it made sense in my first post but do my own proof reading, on reading comments it was obvious I had not communicated well. What I am seeking by breaking it up is an indication of preference between rest avoidance and double chance so as to keep any subsequent vote absolutely clear, ie no change or this one option. Re the changed vote, that's an easy one, it was cast in error and I was was asked if it could be changed, my reply was not in the system, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't consdier the intent of the vote, that would be kinda 'naff'
anthak wrote: Whats happening with this? Not much.. After discussing fixture timing with you I figured we had until the end of October, the poll end date is 24th October with nothing clear enough right now to do anything early. I'll give it another couple of weeks and see where it lies then. Right now we have had 15 votes. So far that's; 8 change nothings 5 play through the byes 2 double rounds
Len wrote: anthak wrote: Whats happening with this? Not much.. After discussing fixture timing with you I figured we had until the end of October, the poll end date is 24th October with nothing clear enough right now to do anything early. I'll give it another couple of weeks and see where it lies then. Right now we have had 15 votes. So far that's; 8 change nothings 5 play through the byes 2 double rounds Ok, thanks for the update.
In another thread Len noted: 'It's looking like we need to assume we have all the votes we are going to get on the finals changes.' I am bemused by this. Presumably the three who have not voted on this issue re-committed to ORFFA. But are they really committed when presumably Len has sent them messages urging them to be involved. Yet, they have chosen not to take part in this poll. Of course there may be some explanation. C'mon guys, let us know how you would like to see the comp structured.
Ive said it before regarding previous votes, and it didn't go down well with some, but I reckon non votes should indicate a preference for status quo for those coaches. I get that it could indicate they are not fussed if things change, but I am not trying to presume what they would vote for. Its too difficult to know what the go is, so status quo should prevail. Also, i don't think it should be mandatory that everyone votes. But a decision to change shouldn't be made unless a fair few of us do vote. Most of us have voted in this one, which is good.