New Ladle Rules (Split from Lade 37 discussion)

[kyle]

Dlh, Flex, Sinewave and myself came up with a new set of guidelines for the ladle. These guidelines contain a clear set of rules along with a few new additional rules. Modifications to the procedures and a solid warning system.

Several rules we listed were already voted on, here are some new ones that we added. To start off we decided to set a minimum amount of players to 4, and a maximum of 11 per team. We feel that if under 4 players on a team before the brackets are created then they really don't have a team. We also added that team leaders are the only ones allows to modify their team on the challenge board. In addition to that, you may only make 2 changes after the brackets are set up until 1 hour before the ladle. Either adding or switching two players or one of both per team is allowed. And if your whole team fails to show up you can be disciplined.

Along with adding a set of rules, we have modified a few of the procedures. To start we added in the meeting, with potential voting between team leaders starting 30-45 minutes before the ladle. We also allow emergency voting, to go along with the quarterly voting, So if a major issue comes up we can vote and decide a solution without waiting on a quarterly vote. Finally we set some guidelines for PM voting. These voting will deal with giving warnings and penalties.

Please take a look at them and post your thoughts/opinions.

[orion]

i agree with that, i hope have the challenge board open fast

[INW]

I like the general idea on how moderation and team leadership works.

I found some tiny typos but I'm not in the mood to fix some unimportant mistakes. :D

[Hoax]

To start we added in the meeting, with potential voting between team leaders starting 30-45 minutes before the ladle.

About what exactly

[Mkay1]

I don't think the maximum number of players per team should be 11. I think it should be a total of 13 (maybe 14) - whether it be 1 team captain, and 12 players, so two team captains and 11 players.

[sinewav]

To start we added in the meeting, with potential voting between team leaders starting 30-45 minutes before the ladle.

About what exactly

Hopefully nothing. But it would be good to check in, no? It's very, very unlikely that there will be an emergency voting issue; but sometimes there is a server issue (missing, wrong cfgs...) and captains can use that time to sort it out. This meeting, of course, is voluntary. But if there is a pressing problem wouldn't it be nice to be represented?

I don't think the maximum number of players per team should be 11.

All of the newly proposed rules are there to subvert the practice of team-swapping. Think of it as an added measure to stop two teams from signing up in the same slot. It really shouldn't affect anyone adversely, but if found that it does more harm than good we'll surely do away with it.

[Goodygumdrops]

Dlh, Flex, Sinewave and myself came up with a new set of guidelines for the ladle.

All of the newly proposed rules are there to subvert the practice of team-swapping.

[sinewav]

I'm surprised there isn't more feedback on the rule revisions. Really surprised. Should there be a new thread for it? Is this catching people's attention? Can those who have read them, spread the word?

[noob_saibot]

I'm wondering why those involved in making rules are the ones who were involved in some of the previous mishaps. Not so much dlh but...

[Goodygumdrops]

I'm wondering why those involved in making rules are the ones who were involved in some of the previous mishaps. Not so much dlh but...

why not dlh?

[noob_saibot]

why not dlh?

Did he really do anything wrong? It had something to do with the aliases right? But yeah, if it was against the rules or obviously unsportsmanlike such as switching two entire teams in a bracket, then I don't think that he, or anyone for that matter should be allowed to make rules. That makes zero sense to me...

[syllabear]

Who knows more about loopholes and problems and such as the criminals?

[sinewav]

I'm wondering why those involved in making rules are the ones who were involved in some of the previous mishaps. Not so much dlh but...

Last year it was kyle and I who worked together to rewrite the guidelines page on our own initiative (mostly because it's was seriously out of date). When we were done, it was dlh and Flex who proofread our work and made helpful suggestions.

After the last few Ladle mishaps it was clear that the guideline page needed more work. Right as kyle and I started on it, I suggested that Flex be involved in the process. He and I have our differences, but I like his ideas and I think his perspective is valuable in this case.

In some sense, Flex and dlh are the perfect people for the job because of their differences. It took a lot of effort for us to put hostility aside and work together to come up with, what we believe is a better system. What you see is the result of hours and hours of work between us.

But we're not done. We really need the input of everyone, even if it's just to say "good job, I like it."

[Nelhybel]

I'm surprised there isn't more feedback on the rule revisions. Really surprised. Should there be a new thread for it? Is this catching people's attention? Can those who have read them, spread the word?

Me too, I'm amazed this hasn't already had at least a page of responses, let alone multiple pages.

Possibly it should be split starting at Kyle's post that contains the new rules?

Anyways, I think the committee of those who wrote them is a great selection. After a read-through of the new rules, I think they look good - while decreasing the risk of rule-breaking, you've succeeded at not infringing on team's rights, which is what I was concerned about. So gz on that.

[Goodygumdrops]

I'm surprised there isn't more feedback on the rule revisions. Really surprised. Should there be a new thread for it? Is this catching people's attention? Can those who have read them, spread the word?

Me too, I'm amazed this hasn't already had at least a page of responses, let alone multiple pages.

well i don't see any reason to say what i really think of this whole rules-changing situation