Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:47:06 -0500 
From: Greg K Chung <gc2n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: INCL Discussions

osyjm@cs.montana.edu (Jaye Mathisen) writes:
> The following items are up to be discussed very shortly in INLC.  Please
> send either me (osyjm@cs.montana.edu, and I will forward them) or the
> INLC (inlcouncil@cs.montana.edu) your thoughts/opinions.  Please try
> to put the string 'INLC' in your subject, we all get a lot of mail, it helps
> to be able to sort it a bit.
> 

I am posting my thoughts to rgn, for I feel no need for the secrecy
that the INLC keeps.  In turn, maybe I can get some useful responses
and maybe things can get going.

> 1)  Scheduling, including divisions if at all.  [I had a short talk the
> other day with Stiletto about scheduling, and he brought up some good points
> between being a school team, and At-largeness, and which has the advantages.
> These and other issues need to be addressed].  It would be nice if potential
> team captains made sure their opinions get in.
> 

As we speak, a proposal is being worked out among the IRG (soon to be
sent out by me) that may help the INLC change the scheduling for NEXT
season.  It is pretty much too late to change it now, so let us accept
this and work on making the current season as workable as possible.
A primary concern is the status of at-large (@L) teams. 

Last summer, an @L team automatically won tie-breakers by merit of its
@L status.  Last fall, an @L team had no special advantages due to its
@L status.  There were only two distinction that an @L team had last
fall.  First, an @L team was restricted to no more than 4 (half) its
team playing from the same locale at any time.  Second, an @L team was
empowered to specify its "home base" which allowed it to place itself
in the division of its choosing.  Thus, we have a class of team with a
major restriction (1) and a small advantage (2).  

There are two solutions to the @L problem, and another follow-up idea.
I propose that an @L team be given another advantage.  The "win
tie-breakers" of old was too huge; making the playoffs based on locale
is unreasonable.  On the other hand, merely being able to specify your
location is too little.  I suggest that @L teams have the special
power to pick race FIRST or SECOND (3) the decision resting with the
captain.  The order of picking between two @L teams can determined
through the agreement of both captains, or by random choice (4).

The follow-up idea is to incorporate some of the features of an @L
team into the mainsteam.  First, we can allow ANY team to be in ANY
division of its choosing.  This requires more work on the part of the
INLC, and every team would posts its roster and its desired division
as part of its entry into the INL.  Of course, given this, we would
just have Division I and Division II rather than the East and West
(5).  Scheduling would then proceed as last season, with 1 or 2
extra-divisional games.  The intent would be for teams to place
themselves where they think they should be.  I expect stronger teams
to place themselves in Division I, and weaker and developing teams in
Division II.  Intentional miscategorization will probably lead to less
enjoyment from the games, and therefore probably won't be a factor.

Secondly, adopt the policy that the AWAY team can pick race first OR
second, depending on the wishes of the AWAY captain.  This isn't a
major change, but may accomodate some non-standard philosophy. 

As a side note, if none of these ideas are adopted, I motion for the
@L class to be eliminated.  Make all teams equal to all other teams
categorically.

Note 1:  I consider this major, because it affects half the playing
team, and probably a third of the total roster (assuming a 12 man
roster).

Note 2:  Small at the time, because most people did not know the
relative strengths of the teams in each division.  In hindsight, it is
a general concensus that the West had an easier time than the East.

Note 3:  Some captains feel that picking second is better than picking
first.  Thus, we give the captain the option to pick first or second
at his discretion.

Note 4:  The INLC could simply flip a coin and post the results at the
time of posting the schedule.

Note 5:  Of course, Mojo Riser will vote this down.  It is apparent
that he enjoys being in a weaker West with the intent that his mighty
Golden Bears crush the other teams.  



> 2)  Pops/pop-timer and related items.

It is too difficult to monitor this activity.  Of course, that's what
they say about drugs and illegal aliens.  But then again, we don't
(yet) have government funding to hire enforcement agents (NEA Netrek
Enforcement Agent).  We can either go on good faith, or change the
system so that aids don't help.  A more random pop time might help,
and only ftp'd clients for level playing fields is good.  


> 3)  Half-time.  

Don't need it.  The INL server was built with a PAUSE command which
works just as well.  I have difficulty envisioning a MANDATORY pause,
which seems to be what the INLC voted for.  By just using the PAUSE
command, we eliminate the problems of "How do we handle armies carried
at time of halftime;  Do we get a new SB; etc."


> 4)  Shorter games/vs 2 games ala Red Shirt's proposal and others like it.

I find the two hour games fine.  It is possible to maintain a high
intensity game for that long.  You can sit down and watch television
for two hours straight, in general.  Sure, in an INL game you might
have more of an adrenaline rush, but that's what Gatorade is for.  



Flt. Captain Stiletto