|
Post by James on Jun 18, 2007 5:30:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Skillz on Jun 18, 2007 5:55:31 GMT -5
i think different articles should be weighted differently
why would one bother writing a long article when you could get 50 points doing a top 10 power ranking with minimal length for example. I'm not saying they don't help the league as i like the power rankings, but why/how would that be worth the same amount of points as one of those long mock drafts or a thoughtful article that required a lot of research by krup or james.
An example...in SLOR we have an article grader
from 5-30 pooints for length (it's almost impossible to get 30, that's like a 3,000 word article) and up to 50 for content, creativity, etc. (50 again is very hard to get, so the average article would get around 60)
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 18, 2007 6:26:07 GMT -5
Agreed.
I basically think that articles should be graded from 1-30. An article that has taken research, is in-depth, creative and lengthy would score between 20-30. A simple team analysis or breakdown would be from 0-20.
Signatures should only be from 0-15 points maximum. Jobs for the commish could vary from 0-30 depending on how hard/time consuming they are.
I personally just think if a GM can get 11 camps in one season (and well done to Krup, nothing against him as next season I'm going to try and get just as much), then the system has to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Jun 18, 2007 11:27:14 GMT -5
i know krup got a cheap one for that vitale sig BUT what krup has done in terms of activity this year has been unmatched. he wrote a lot of articles and i definitely would not say he got 11 easy RCs. Also you can only spend 4 in a year so it's not like he gets 11 improvements this week.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Jun 18, 2007 11:28:50 GMT -5
If they are so easy to acquire...why don't you do them?
|
|
|
Post by The X-Factor on Jun 18, 2007 12:12:25 GMT -5
because that'd be to "easy"
|
|