Double post because I think the above is hilarious and deserves its own post.
GSL is the site's flagship tournament and happens once a year (roughly), and you're trying to pass off a significant rule change as "experimental?" GSL is not the tournament for that kind of stuff; I'm not saying additional rules or twists can't be added, but they should have some serious thought put into them and if there's criticisms they should be taken into account, not dismissed.
So instead of addressing the point you're going to make attacks on character? His argument is valid and you did nothing but distract from it. To demonstrate, let's return to your previous post:
So teamwork is the intention of this rule? That's fantastic, but I don't see how this new rule does that whatsoever. If you could make a post explaining that it'd help put a lot of complaints to rest. But moving on, teamwork is the focus here.
So let's say somebody's mother does die, and they can't play anymore. Well and truly unfortunate, but that is not the focus here. We have a competition going on, the other teams aren't going to stop and neither should the person's team. While that person is on bereavement there are still three healthy members than can compete. They're a man down, a serious deficit, but under the regular GSL rules they can rally and try to remain competitive. Under this new rule though, that team is stuck without recourse, they can't do anything to improve their situation. Where's the teamwork there?
You can't dismiss these criticisms as "whining," they are legitimate flaws in your system, and your deflections lend credence to the theory that not much thought was put into the rule. As a result of this you are hyper defensive and are prepared to enforce it without any consideration. Instead, I really think you should be open to allowing alternative suggestions for "twists" so we have a different formula to GSL that still accomplishes what you want it to.
To that end I've been giving it some thought on my three day "vacation." Not because I think XBA deserves my contributions, not even to prove a point, but just because it was a fun little brain exercise. I won't reveal the formulas right away (though somebody could probably figure them out), but they do relate to the gamerscore disparity between teammates. I don't think either of these are flawless, but of the dozen different things I tried these are the two that stood out the most.
I used GSL 13 as my sample set. I wanted to use other GSL tournaments as well to sort of compare methods, but the information on those tournaments isn't as convenient as GSL 13 info. Besides, this does demonstrate each fairly well.
[spoiler=RAWRAWRAWGAMERS]Raw table, sorted by most points for reference.
Same table, this time sorted by Lowest Gamerscore (the current twist).
The biggest change here is that Fetching Young Hounds moves from 6th up to 3rd, a serious gain! But besides that there's no much change, there's some other shifts but really the gamerscores are so close together they don't mean a whole lot.
I think the biggest thing to look at here is that the differences between first and second place are lesser than through addition. Maybe I've been reading the situation wrong but it seems one of the bigger complaints from last year was that it was that one person single-handedly closed the gap between first and second; if the twist is meant to prevent something of that nature, lowest GS is a poor way to do that because they almost had it that way too, and can you really argue they deserved to win over Finnish Line? I don't think so, but opinions may differ.
Now the table sorted by Method 1.
The idea behind this method was to give teams a bonus based on the disparity of their team members. Team placements remain largely the same with this formula (only one shift), but what does change is the gap between each team. Suddenly 1st and 2nd isn't a 12k gap through one man's efforts, but they're 65k points behind because they got a MUCH lesser bonus. On the other hand, the bonus received by Fetching Young Hounds closed their gap significantly, going from 14k behind AxH to 1.5k.
This idea isn't perfect, I won't point out the flaws just in case, but at the very least it does give a truer representation of how the teams-at-large did than simple addition of their scores.
Last table, sorted by Method 2.
Opposite of the above, the idea was to give a penalty based on the members' gamerscore gaps. Positions at the top stayed the same, but like the above it does give a truer representation of their placement, as Stack It took a huge hit while Finnish Line to a pretty insignificant fall relative to their total.
The story gets more interesting as you get lower though, where the total gamerscores were much closer. Looking at Fetching Young Hounds vs AxH once again, this method once again puts Fetching Young Hounds within reach of AxH by reducing a 14k raw point shortage to a 3.5k point shortage after the penalty. While in both cases FYH still didn't beat out AxH, with the revelation that even teams are rewarded more they may have been able to initiate some additional teamwork that AxH hadn't demonstrated.
GoG is a very telling story, as they lose over half of their score with this method, because the vast majority of their score came from one player. But they aren't alone, as Team 4 Stars also lost most of their points. As a result, both teams went from middle of the rankings to the bottom. PlanEx and Underdogs were practically tied for raw gamerscore, but after applying this method it's clear that PlanEx's team was more balanced as Underdogs took a bigger hit and lost to PlanEx as a result.
This method is my favorite by far. I see less flaws than Method 1 and it's actually very straightforward, but I understand the desire to use a bonus instead of a penalty so I included both. I don't think GoG would be very happy to have lost half of their score, but then again they could have reduced that penalty quite easily if they knew the method.
With a little effort a potentially better system could be created. Stifling the dissatisfaction instead of opening up to contribution and collaboration strikes me as counterintuitive. I think the official response and behavior presented within this topic are unreasonable. I can't say much more than that without being disrespectful.