All managers must vote: Judging decision must be made

[BoxBuzz]

Within the context of the software there is a "judges bias" control

There are 3 settings.

1. NO BIAS
2. USE BIAS RATING
3. RANDOM


We have been operating thus far on the 3. RANDOM setting.

What I judge this to mean is that it oscillates randomly between settings 1 and 2. Mixing the "NO BIAS" option with the "BIAS RATING" option. I suspect that the "BIAS RATING" option reflects the software writers thoughts on the bias's of each judge.

It's impossible to quantify this in any sensible manner. However...if you think the Random setting has produced bizarre results, you may want to vote for a change. And here's your chance....feel free to lobby for your opinion if you wish.

We will proceed from week 16 to the end with whatever the majority votes for.

If you feel a change is in order...please pick 1 or 2. If you think it's just fine, then stay with 3. Or if you want to close your eyes and hit the keyboard....that's ok as well. But if we change...we keep it that way for precisely half the season.

You are welcome to change your vote up until I run the 16th event. At that time I will go forward with whatever the consensus is. In the case of a tie...I will pick the protocol.

That is all.

[armageto]

If we were playing on random for close to half the season, we might as well let it roll on. Things can't go much worse for Chocolate at this pace.

[DrDuke]

I feel OK about the current display.

[NoScoutingReports]

I vote for the current setting.

[Crease]

Yeah, randomise everything...
And I'm saying that coming off the raw end of a couple of close ones...

[HyacinthusTurnipseed]

I vote for no bias. To me, George Dixon fighting Erik Morales is unrealistic anyway, so why would we submit to having obnoxiously "realistic" judging instead of just letting the best "man" win?

I would be willing to just continue as is though, seeing as it looks like I'm in the minority.

[BoxBuzz]

I vote for no bias. To me, George Dixon fighting Erik Morales is unrealistic anyway, so why would we submit to having obnoxiously "realistic" judging instead of just letting the best "man" win?

I would be willing to just continue as is though, seeing as it looks like I'm in the minority.

This is a point I've considered....and I honestly don't know if the "No Bias" setting would actually perfectly reflect what WE JUDGE to be seeing within the narrative. I'd probably have to run a hundred fights and study the outcomes to determine that.

So my thinking is/was that if I allow the software to randomly roam from one set of algorhtyms to another...we probably get a fair and balanced outcome for everyone. It is after all a game of chance, with some mathematical equations from some rather eccentric folks who value both the sport of boxing, and the mathmatical sciences attempting to factor the personalities and eccentricties of fighters and judges.

so....let the game of chance simply be the best game of chance/ combined with a bit of math logic have it's way.

In boxing....a single solitary nanosecond can change everything. So though it is a USUALLY a game of skill, it is also about as random as a rouge single oddball punch....or dislocated shoulder, or pretty girl sitting in the front row that winks, or what the effin fighter ate for dinner last night....or even who he did or didn't have a game of hide the salami with last night.

So I do favor either the bias, or the random setting.