Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)
https://www.wargame.ch/board/cc/

CCC Top Guns
https://www.wargame.ch/board/cc/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2607		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  19 [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 4:18 am ]
Post subject:  CCC Top Guns
I have re-done the CCC Top Guns with much help from Garry Cope(the guy is amazing) and General Natta. Phil will have the link re-established to my URL soon, and we have compiled the list net of administrative points. Some of the usual suspects have been rounded up, but there are also some fresh faces out there.
[url="http://royal42nd.homestead.com/index.html"]Image[/url]
Author:  D.S. Walter [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 6:07 am ]
Post subject: 
Hm, why "net of administrative points"? That sounds as if administrative points were worth less than other points. We had this discussion for the "war points" comparison of both armies a while ago and decided to display just the point total. Administrative points are earned for efforts just as important for the club as fighting battles. I am not much in favor of a list that encourages the thought that behind the high point totals of some active members there is another "hidden" total of "real" points without admin pts. A point is a point is a point.
Author:  Al Amos [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 6:37 am ]
Post subject: 
My point total is wrong. As of 9/1/02 colonial army page I have 572, not 478.

Is this because of the "net admin" (whatever that is) situation Dierk is talking about?

I'm against it totally.
Author:  D.S. Walter [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 6:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Me to. Actually, I get more angry with every minute I think about it. [:(!]
Author:  19 [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 8:32 am ]
Post subject: 
Phil? should we let the girls vote on this? Since Im doing the work in all my free time(sic) maybe we should get them to spec it out for us. I dont give a flying rat's ass. Al? if you are short some points, you are welcome to the 800 or so I seem to have misplaced within the last month, and my medals, think I had about 15 and I cant seem to find them either...[B)]I'm sure I did not communicate well enough with what we were trying to do, and I apologize for that, no denigration of anyone's points was intended, and I think Phil has offered the good reasons why we did it. I dont appreciate the time I have put into it and then get ripped for it[V]. Phil, I'm going outside to split some logs, I'm going to take a magic marker and write "Amos" on one and then Im going to write "Walter" on the other, and then bust the hell out of em.[8] Im gone.
Author:  Stefan Reuter [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 9:39 am ]
Post subject: 
Nice to read the messages but .... have anyone a link to this page? From the clup page I still get the "old" listing[:(]

In general I think too that it is no good idea to have a list "only" with combat points. I agree with Dierk and Al in this case. Maybe it would be a good way to display two list on this page?[8)]
Author:  Al Amos [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 9:44 am ]
Post subject: 
I am under the impression that the Top Gun List is a club authorized list. If so then the Club Cabinet needs to approve major changes to it, such as implemented by Phil & Scott.

If the cabinet approved it, then we abide by it, but please say that they apporved it before you posted it.

If Phil & Scott just changed it on thier own whim, then shame on them and change it back. Present your new format to the cabinet and let them make the decision which is their's alone to make.

I'm still against it. I know that Dierk could have more points than the total he 'lost' by playing game turns during the time he spends on admin work. To a lesser degree so could I as could all members who 'work' to keep the club running.

A war can't be run without beans and bullets, and telling the people who provide the beans and bullets that the time doing that is not as important as the time pulling the trigger is the wrong message to send out.

Scott, after you split up the firewood, please deliver all that has my name on it to Tulsa. We can use it for the upcoming winter, and thanks for thinking of me [;)].
Author:  Gary McClellan [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 10:10 am ]
Post subject: 
Stefan,
The new list is linked off of the British Army page at the moment.
Author:  Al Amos [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 11:33 am ]
Post subject: 
Phil,

You're learning how to be a CEO [;)]. See how much grief you would have missed had you merely stated in your first post.... "The cabinet liked this idea so here it is" ... If that's the way they want it, then they are in charge, and that's the way it is.

Now reread my post and I said IF the cabinet approved, then okay IF NOT then shame, so no shame on you [:)].

In every group it is best to make sure everyone knows if an idea you are using is approved by the ruling authorities or just an idea you're running with. By making that clear up front, you can save a lot of hurt feelings from misunderstandings, and then those who don't like the idea can gripe to the ruling authorities, since that what they are getting paid for [;)].

I still don't like the idea, but its done.
Author:  Al Amos [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 12:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Phil,

It wasn't such a 'minor' issue. The club awards points for playing games and helping to run the club. Once earned these points have always been regarded as a single total earned by the perosn. Then out of-the-blue you posted a list of points comparing individual within the club, stripping some people of some of thier points with no explanation. Don't you think those effected should be concerned?

I didn't know you used to be a cabinet member. It wasn't obvious by the way you changed a very basic method of showing individuals' points without mentioning that the current cabinet approved.

Better communication of the idea, prior to posting, would have helped all.
Author:  D.S. Walter [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 12:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
I do appreciate Scott's work, and I don't think I said anything to the contrary.

I disagree with the method.

"Combat" points don't tell a damn about how good a player someone is. They tell simply how much time he has invested in gaming. As Al said before, some people invest their time in other aspects of club life, and their points tell that story, too. There really should not be made any difference between points from different sources, anywhere.

Totalling only the combat-related points <b>anywhere</b> - if together with the total, including admin pts, or not - sends an awfully wrong signal out to the club members. It furthers the thoughts that there are "good", "real" - combat-related - points, and lesser admin pts that are somehow not kosher. It can create the idea, especially in the minds of members without admin positions, that the brass are getting their promotions in some weird way. It's like, "hey, that guy is a Colonel with 707 pts, but, look at the top gun list, <b>in reality</b> he only has 517, now what's that, he should only be a Lt. Colonel."

I am investing a lot of time in this club as department AdC, as trainer, and for the award center. I could play a lot more games in this time, and have a better standing on your new top gun list. So far, this club made no difference between the contributions to club life, they were all rewarded with points, and a point was a point. And that's how I think it should be. For my work, I want nothing more than the recognition of the club and its members. But I don't want someone to come along and tell me that a full quarter of my points are somehow fishy.

There is only one kind of points, regardless of their source, and there is only one grand total, period.

I as good as dropped out from another wargame club when they came up with a list precisely like this one. I fought it there, and I will fight it here. It's the wrongest signal I can imagine for everyone who invests time in this club other than for fighting battles.

I beg you Gentlemen, reconsider.
Author:  Mike Cox [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 1:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
All work done in the club is rewarded and appreciated. Admin points are reflected in your respective ranks. A "Top Gun" listing should be a comparison of those points earned in battle. Heck, I would even disallow maneuver points.

I think club members know who the big contributors are.

Bartender, a round of drinks, and some fresh powder for Phil.
Author:  D.S. Walter [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 1:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't get it, sorry Mike. What's competitive about counting how many turns someone has completed? That's where points come from. It's a measure of time invested, nothing more, and mainly reflects how long someone has been a member.

If you really want to find out the top guns, list the win-loss ratio.
Author:  Mike Cox [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 5:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
If you really want to find out the top guns, list the win-loss ratio.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actually that hits it on the head. +1 for a victory of any stripe, 0 for a draw, -1 for a loss of any degree.

Of course it takes a volunteer....

(BTW Scott - thanks for the work in updating the page to begin with. It is aklways good to see people jump in and take care of business.)
Author:  Ernie Sands [ Sat Sep 07, 2002 5:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
There is no right way or wrong way to do the "Top Gun" list. There was absolutely no intention to cause a ruckus nor ignore anyones contribution to the club. We are constantly trying to evolve and do something different; we are striving to do things that we think people will like and be able to identify with.

So, this new list was an EVOLUTION NOT a REVOLUTION!

Perhaps there could be 2 columns on this list. One showing the list "rank" of a person based on raw points and another showing the contribution of admin points to the mix.

One thing that was discussed (as the club was being organized) for quite some time was the whole issue of giving some type of club reward for the EXTRA effort that people put into the club administrative posts. Essentially, we wanted to recognize those individuals, but keep the "rewards" relatively low. We wanted the GAMING to be the focus, not the admin. It was decided NOT to reward the administrators with high ranks, not to reward them with extraordinarily high admin points, but to keep the majority of awards in the 5 to 10 points per month range.

On that basis, the "game points" are for efforts in gaming and the admin points are for the extraordinary contributions of all those that help for no other reason except that they LIKE to.

There were NO points stripped from anyone; there were no changes in any individuals rank (i.e. Ensign or Captain) within their respective Armies.

People that help in administrating this or any club are the glue that holds the framework together; the more people that help, the easier and better the club runs.

And the new list type certainly was not done with any malice, but was an attempt to put a finer touch to the GAMING aspect.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/