i'll put my thoughts out there
it seemed kind of like you guys kept the barely active players ranked, and just put them several spots lower because of their inactivity. this is something i don't really agree with.
i don't know the results you guys are working with, but lucien should be a lot higher, or not ranked at all. don't pussyfoot around with 15th, i think he should just be ranked where his skill level is (around 8th or something) or given an honorable mention.
same goes with tofu, except with a lesser extent. he should probably be 11th, or unranked.
i thought mitchell was retired? or semi-retired. i was thinking he wouldn't be ranked, but w/e. if he's active, he's active i guess.
We didn't directly punish them for inactivity (a la inactive = move down); they were only moved down if we perceived that their inactivity actually led to someone else potentially passing them skill-wise
that is to say, the intent is more clear if instead of you perceiving it as "justin move down", you see it as "brandon moved up"... the reason for the change would be improvement on the part of other players combined with stagnation from the player in question, not a magical evaporation of skill
Another problem i see is that it looks like the panel was far too results-oriented. Like pocky admitted, if there was a lot of squabbling over results/relevance, and people weren't sure if they mattered or what not, I think that perceived skill level should be the equalizer here. That's part of why there's a panel, imo; you gotta recognize inconsistencies when they show up. Hugo always makes this argument, that you need to take past rankings/skill into account, or else you'll end up with a norcal pr.
we DID go by perceived skill level... the fact that you apparently disagree with our perception is another issue
my criteria for comparison is
1) Is the player clearly subjectively better? If he is, then he's above. An example of this coming into play is Falcomist > SFAT.
2) If players are subjectively comparable, THEN analyze what the results say. More recent results mean more, older results mean less, loser bracket matches outweight winner bracket matches which outweight pools, etc. All the thought that you think is missing DID go into it; we just don't see it the same way. An example of this coming into play is Sheridan > Lucien.
3) If the average results are comparable, go with the player with less volatility. An example of this is TANG > Replicate
Concerning #2/3, I believe that a signature win is a huge factor, which is why DP gets the benefit of being so high... however, this only comes into play if it isn't offset by a similar notable loss.
I don't think sfat should be so high up. Sure, he's good (everybody is) but he'd get tapped by phil, dp, darrell on a good day (isn't their record relatively even), tofu, german, and me. Zac is improving, but I don't think he has truly improved to the #6 spot.
zac beat darrell and brandon at pat's house, and darrell at the tournament before that. kid got game
You simply saying "'he'd get tapped" is a difference of perception, as I personally don't believe that to be the case at all. I'm obviously not confident in this, but this is why there's a panel of 5 people to weigh in on it, and honestly, Zac at 6 was a fairly unanimous choice, so I feel comfortable in the subjective call that went into it concerning his standing relative to all the people you listed.
Darrell should be a few spots lower, too. he did beat rey('s falco??), dp, and tang, and lost to sfat. Space animals get soft-countered by samus when they don't know the matchup. Since darrell lost to sfat, does that mean that sfat shot up past dp, tang, and mitchell? or was he just the only one who knew what to do against samus.
In our opinion, sfat DID shoot by them, which was your previous complaint a few sentences ago. To me, this illustrates a consistent viewpoint so this disagreement is just a continuation of the last one
Also, why isn't knowing "what to do against samus" a part of a player's skillset that should be judged? If Zac has superior matchup knowledge that earns him wins the others wouldn't get, that most definitely does and should play into the decision
Cgc 13 should be acknowledged more as a semi-fluke. fluke is too strong a word, actually, but imo the panelists did a pretty bad job of distinguishing between skill and circumstances on this update.
What were the circumstances that we missed?
on a more personal note, i could see the combination of peter and kevin bringing a lot of hullabalooing to the panel, but that's neither here nor there.
I was actually involved very little during the drama portion
those are my thoughts on the matter
no salt went into the making of this post, lol
so don't try to throw salt back my way
and i may not care enough to respond to a wall-of-text
again, no hard feelings if i leave you hanging (kevin)
Well, I think panelists are responsible for replying to everyone's concerns (which I found lacking in the past)... but if you continue to disagree, I'd still rather you throw back some clarification on your POV rather than resort to "I don't care". If nobody cares then there's no point to having the rankings and/or the same "mistakes" will be repeated next time
edit: if anyone is wondering, the hottest debate was spots 7-13
