Ratings discussions, ideas, concerns etc

[CFH]

I would like to see a system put in place by which a manager can be voted out by a certain number of other managers. The purpose would be to facilitate the removal of those managers who are inactive, who push agendas (should this occur), those who refuse my sexual advances, or any other reason that could result in their removal.

Thoughts?

[JazMerkin]

I would like to see a system put in place by which a manager can be voted out by a certain number of other managers. The purpose would be to facilitate the removal of those managers who are inactive, who push agendas (should this occur), those who refuse my sexual advances, or any other reason that could result in their removal.

Thoughts?

The key problem with this is, is will their replacement be any better? I mean JoeyUK is the only 'replacement' who's actually come in & done anything & to be fair to him, he's not one of the guys who's on the site every day, but at least he comes by & votes at times.

Most of the guys who've offered to be replacements aren't people who I can see making the effort to come in & I'm questionable of the boxing knowledge of some of them.

I'm not saying we don't need some new ones, but without people coming forward with the knowledge necessary it might be difficult. Why did Mick have to leave, he would've been perfect

I do think that we should institute some kind of discipline system to deal with your sexual predation of managers. I bet hitmanhatton's locked up in your basement right now ya sicko

[Spicoli]

I would like to see a system put in place by which a manager can be voted out by a certain number of other managers. The purpose would be to facilitate the removal of those managers who are inactive, who push agendas (should this occur), those who refuse my sexual advances, or any other reason that could result in their removal.

Thoughts?

We should consider it.But not get to a point to where we cannibalize ourselves.I think we need to knuckle down and just sort out what needs to be sorted out....the issues,votes,polls,systems and protocol and then get down to maintaining rankings.I know its early and good things take time but seems with every resolved issue...another pops up.I wonder if it has something to do with retaining people?


Oh and sorry to spurn the advances....but Ive never done THAT and am not fond of rope burns.but can I pick my own 'safety word' haaa.

how about one or two rotating manager slots.Given to new members.

[killersheep]

I would like to see a system put in place by which a manager can be voted out by a certain number of other managers. The purpose would be to facilitate the removal of those managers who are inactive, who push agendas (should this occur), those who refuse my sexual advances, or any other reason that could result in their removal.

Thoughts?

We should consider it.But not get to a point to where we cannibalize ourselves.I think we need to knuckle down and just sort out what needs to be sorted out....the issues,votes,polls,systems and protocol and then get down to maintaining rankings.I know its early and good things take time but seems with every resolved issue...another pops up.I wonder if it has something to do with retaining people?


Oh and sorry to spurn the advances....but Ive never done THAT and am not fond of rope burns.but can I pick my own 'safety word' haaa.

how about one or two rotating manager slots.Given to new members.

Not a bad idea, or even a trial period.

[killersheep]

Another thing, that I would like to throw out is currently we have 1 year in the pool before official review. I think we should reduce this to 6 months, this will help us better regulate how many people are in the pool.
As you know we have some divisions that have an overabundance of fighters in the pool and some divisions that have hardly any.

[Galaxy]

Like Spicoli says, lets get the main issues sorted then start dealing with maintaining these ratings!

• I personally think polls should be separate, as we can discuss the issue at hand, but we should limit polls to things that have happened the week just ended so as not to have to many& not to get to far of ourselves
• We bring in killer's new rule, one fighter, once a month. I feel you should be able to vote on any ranked fighter, not just those in your division
• Inactive managers should be removed from their positions
• New managers should be given a 2 month trail
• All votes should be equal

Any others?

[Spicoli]

Another thing, that I would like to throw out is currently we have 1 year in the pool before official review. I think we should reduce this to 6 months, this will help us better regulate how many people are in the pool.
As you know we have some divisions that have an overabundance of fighters in the pool and some divisions that have hardly any.

Awesome.To determine a vote?Think its good to consider that just because a guy is dropped or not voted on does not mean thats the way it will stay.Boxing is one big constant revolving door.Rankings first and foremost,pool an after thought....right Galaxy.

[Galaxy]

Another thing, that I would like to throw out is currently we have 1 year in the pool before official review. I think we should reduce this to 6 months, this will help us better regulate how many people are in the pool.
As you know we have some divisions that have an overabundance of fighters in the pool and some divisions that have hardly any.

Awesome.To determine a vote?Think its good to consider that just because a guy is dropped or not voted on does not mean thats the way it will stay.Boxing is one big constant revolving door.Rankings first and foremost,pool an after thought....right Galaxy.

Right my man, in any case if anyone sees someone in the pool they feel shouldn't be there all they need to do is put it to a vote...

[CFH]

I would like to see a system put in place by which a manager can be voted out by a certain number of other managers. The purpose would be to facilitate the removal of those managers who are inactive, who push agendas (should this occur), those who refuse my sexual advances, or any other reason that could result in their removal.

Thoughts?

The key problem with this is, is will their replacement be any better? I mean JoeyUK is the only 'replacement' who's actually come in & done anything & to be fair to him, he's not one of the guys who's on the site every day, but at least he comes by & votes at times.

Most of the guys who've offered to be replacements aren't people who I can see making the effort to come in & I'm questionable of the boxing knowledge of some of them.

I'm not saying we don't need some new ones, but without people coming forward with the knowledge necessary it might be difficult. Why did Mick have to leave, he would've been perfect

I do think that we should institute some kind of discipline system to deal with your sexual predation of managers. I bet hitmanhatton's locked up in your basement right now ya sicko

Well, yeah, but he's dead so it doesn't really matter where I have him locked up at this point.

I know this might sound stupid, but maybe now that this system has its own board the prestige associated with being a manager will increase. We could put out a call on the main board to see if anyone is interested in joining us.

[CFH]

I would like to see a system put in place by which a manager can be voted out by a certain number of other managers. The purpose would be to facilitate the removal of those managers who are inactive, who push agendas (should this occur), those who refuse my sexual advances, or any other reason that could result in their removal.

Thoughts?

We should consider it.But not get to a point to where we cannibalize ourselves.I think we need to knuckle down and just sort out what needs to be sorted out....the issues,votes,polls,systems and protocol and then get down to maintaining rankings.I know its early and good things take time but seems with every resolved issue...another pops up.I wonder if it has something to do with retaining people?


Oh and sorry to spurn the advances....but Ive never done THAT and am not fond of rope burns.but can I pick my own 'safety word' haaa.

how about one or two rotating manager slots.Given to new members.

I was thinking of it as more of a last resort sort of a thing and a tool by which regular participation would be encouraged.

[CFH]

Like Spicoli says, lets get the main issues sorted then start dealing with maintaining these ratings!

• I personally think polls should be separate, as we can discuss the issue at hand, but we should limit polls to things that have happened the week just ended so as not to have to many& not to get to far of ourselves
• We bring in killer's new rule, one fighter, once a month. I feel you should be able to vote on any ranked fighter, not just those in your division
• Inactive managers should be removed from their positions
• New managers should be given a 2 month trail
• All votes should be equal

Any others?

I agree with all of those except for Killer's rule, I am firmly against it to be honest (sorry Killer).

Regarding the polls, I think they're great and they should be used liberally for all sorts of matters.

Edit: Like Killer, I feel managers should be able to break ties.

[killersheep]

Like Spicoli says, lets get the main issues sorted then start dealing with maintaining these ratings!

• I personally think polls should be separate, as we can discuss the issue at hand, but we should limit polls to things that have happened the week just ended so as not to have to many& not to get to far of ourselves
• We bring in killer's new rule, one fighter, once a month. I feel you should be able to vote on any ranked fighter, not just those in your division
• Inactive managers should be removed from their positions
• New managers should be given a 2 month trail
• All votes should be equal

Any others?

• Agreed on the threads being seperate for all votes, maybe once they are closed AND updated we should delete the polls just to keep it more streamlined.
• I agree with my idea of course, and I like the augmentation (thinking about boobies) of each manager puts forward ONE motion per month, sounds good to me.
• I think AFTER we get the rules ironed out we should go back and do some housekeeping of the managers positions. All for the new managers position, I would say after a month we will know if they are going to participate.
• I'm ok with Managers breaking ties, but to make it work we have to fill those aforementioned positions.

[killersheep]

Like Spicoli says, lets get the main issues sorted then start dealing with maintaining these ratings!

• I personally think polls should be separate, as we can discuss the issue at hand, but we should limit polls to things that have happened the week just ended so as not to have to many& not to get to far of ourselves
• We bring in killer's new rule, one fighter, once a month. I feel you should be able to vote on any ranked fighter, not just those in your division
• Inactive managers should be removed from their positions
• New managers should be given a 2 month trail
• All votes should be equal

Any others?

I agree with all of those except for Killer's rule, I am firmly against it to be honest (sorry Killer).

Regarding the polls, I think they're great and they should be used liberally for all sorts of matters.

Edit: Like Killer, I feel managers should be able to break ties.

No offense taken, but I am curious to your issue with it, especially with the new revisions.

[CFH]

Like Spicoli says, lets get the main issues sorted then start dealing with maintaining these ratings!

• I personally think polls should be separate, as we can discuss the issue at hand, but we should limit polls to things that have happened the week just ended so as not to have to many& not to get to far of ourselves
• We bring in killer's new rule, one fighter, once a month. I feel you should be able to vote on any ranked fighter, not just those in your division
• Inactive managers should be removed from their positions
• New managers should be given a 2 month trail
• All votes should be equal

Any others?

I agree with all of those except for Killer's rule, I am firmly against it to be honest (sorry Killer).

Regarding the polls, I think they're great and they should be used liberally for all sorts of matters.

Edit: Like Killer, I feel managers should be able to break ties.

No offense taken, but I am curious to your issue with it, especially with the new revisions.

Well, I hope you don't take any offense, but I find it to be very arbitrary and somewhat clumsy regarding the rules which guide it. I don't think there should be any time constraints associated with it and to be honest I'd be fine with a divisional manager proposing such manipulations whenever they see fit, within reason of course. I believe it should be used sparingly, and I very much like the one vote against veto option, but I think the rule should exist without constraints or not at all. If a manager feels more than one fighter should have their position shifted, then why not allow them to request it whenever they see fit (or not at all)? Again, just to reiterate, I would want it stressed that such things are only do be done rarely.

[JazMerkin]

Like Spicoli says, lets get the main issues sorted then start dealing with maintaining these ratings!

• I personally think polls should be separate, as we can discuss the issue at hand, but we should limit polls to things that have happened the week just ended so as not to have to many& not to get to far of ourselves
• We bring in killer's new rule, one fighter, once a month. I feel you should be able to vote on any ranked fighter, not just those in your division
• Inactive managers should be removed from their positions
• New managers should be given a 2 month trail
• All votes should be equal

Any others?

I agree with all of those except for Killer's rule, I am firmly against it to be honest (sorry Killer).

Regarding the polls, I think they're great and they should be used liberally for all sorts of matters.

Edit: Like Killer, I feel managers should be able to break ties.

No offense taken, but I am curious to your issue with it, especially with the new revisions.

Agree on everything but votes being equal, I think the managers being worth 2 is a good thing as its about the only thing a manager has to do.