Taking old data into account for a current PR is pointless and dumb. If someone does especially well in the first few months and then has weak/no results in the second half, it doesn't average out to be "pretty good"--They're just no longer relevant in the tournament scene.
im not exactly sure if this has been stated much, but in relevance to this post. . .
While i do appreciate all the work the panalists did
*IMO*
what should have happened/what still can happen:
take the post apex results, and compare it with the LAST official PR (not the pre apex PR). the one with the music theme.
that will give us the most relevant information in comparison the the most concrete info we were already given during the season.
this way no one can bicker about HOW things were done, any salt proceeding can be resolved in future tournies.
Like i said, I appreciate the work the panalists did with this current PR, and i appreciate the creativity that went into dealing with a 10month season,
i just don't feel it was the right/neccessary move for us atm.
I understand I did not want to be a panalist, thus you may feel my say is too late, but i think given the 15+pages posted simply on the topic of the methology used in the PR (not even the PR list itself really) that says alot. This discussion has been all about the wrong things, and is taking credit away from those that did make it onto either pre/post PR list.
I can help out more with this pr if u wish.
also
i think i might have a solution to resolve the fairness toward the Pre-PR list players
I think it might be a good enough time to say for this PR (if we update it with my idea)
any person that earned a spot on the PRE-apex pr, but does NOT end up on the Revisted Official PR (the one I'd like remade), should earn a spot on an honorable mentions list for their work Pre-apex...