Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

[Data Collection] - "Annals of Castle Black"
#61
Posted 09 March 2014 - 05:23 PM

#62
Posted 09 March 2014 - 07:17 PM

They didn't want to use last names for privacy purposes.
I formatted with first name, last initial. Would have been quite helpful I think, especially for those without an online presence that play in multiple tournaments. It's fine if an individual wants to remove their info, but I did think it was lame that someone came through and cleared all of that info for every player in the tournament (I think I had matched a player to a deck for all 23 participants, but at least 20 of them were entered). Not too big of a deal, all the people who are on the forums have their handles entered so that's still there at least. But it would have been nice to be able to easily track how players do at multiple tournaments in each region (like the winner of Springfield's SC, Brett V., who was at the Tulsa tournament as well; which deck did he play in Tulsa? how well did he do? no way to find out now without tracking him down and asking).
I guess it really comes down to whether or not we think there is any merit to recording individual players or if we just want to collect data regarding deck popularity and success (in which case there is no need to record the player at all).
#63
Posted 09 March 2014 - 09:30 PM

As for the name information: I wasn't originally planning on using this to track player information - player information (name) was being entered primarily so that if multiple people were trying to piece together tournament info, they'd have another reference to jog their memories.
The first reason for this is that the information didn't seem particularly valuable from a 'informing the global meta' perspective, and is more likely to be used for good old-fashioned chest-beating or degrading someone for poor performance. I really don't want the the Annals to become a 'wall of shame', or for anyone to have any incentive not to report a tourney.
Admitedly, the information *would* serve for identifying the best player, and could help Scantrell's ELO system, it's also just cut information (for pairings). I feel the benefits gained by having player names posted are outweighed by the negatives.
I certainly do have privacy concerns as well, as the people whose names are listed have not consented to have that information posted. I think a "FirstName LastInitial" format provides at least some anonimity, but even then I'm not entirely comfortable with it.
I'm willing to reconsider my approach if the community feels strongly otherwise.
- WWDrakey likes this
#64
Posted 09 March 2014 - 10:23 PM

#65
Posted 09 March 2014 - 10:26 PM

Also, as far as Store Championships go, those are official FFG tournaments, so isn't there some expectation of losing anonymity by participating in an official tournament for a game? They have to fill out the decklists and everything right?
#66
Posted 09 March 2014 - 10:36 PM

#67
Posted 10 March 2014 - 12:27 AM

There wasn't a cut at the MI SC?
No. There were a lot less competitive people there so they just kept it best Swiss record. I wish they would have but that's ok. We have another SC in a week so we'll do it then.
#68
Posted 10 March 2014 - 03:43 AM

#69
Posted 10 March 2014 - 02:00 PM

I'm not sure why we need to come to a consensus or anything really. Just post the player names/handles as you see fit. If someone doesn't want to be included, then they can remove their name, or ask not to be added in the first place. I think either first name or first name and last initial is fine, but I doubt anonymity matters. I mean, last year the entire first and last name of every player at Gencon was posted, and it probably happened again at world's too. It's part of playing a game in an era where the internet exists.
That's what was happening, but someone decided to delete all that info (for all the players) in the tournament data I added (presumably another participant, which is fine if they take off their own name as suggested above). That's why I say that in general we need to make a decision about whether to keep that information or not. We can't just add as we see fit if other people are going around deleting it all as they see fit.
#70
Posted 10 March 2014 - 02:10 PM

I also don't feel that data is all that valuable to the community as a whole...
If I could turn this into a tourney-running sheet as well (that did your pairings, then exported them to the sheet), I could see it as labour saving and warrant the additional info.
#71
Posted 10 March 2014 - 02:15 PM

For example, if we see Corey F. fielding Lannister PBtT, then it gives that deck type additional credibility because a renown player thinks it has potential to win a tournament. I don't think we need to apply names for statistical purposes if it's something we can at least see for our own reference.
#72
Posted 10 March 2014 - 05:29 PM

And I find it hilarious that we're having this discussion here when on AGoT cards everyone freely puts their names. It's such a bizarre dichotomy. I wholly understand not wanting PII on the internet and respect it. It just makes stat tracking difficult.
I also understand the "no wall of shame" argument, so I understand the lack of pool play info. I wish people would email me their tourney results files, though (with handles/anonymity notes where it's desired). I NEED MOAR DATA!!!!!
I formatted with first name, last initial. Would have been quite helpful I think, especially for those without an online presence that play in multiple tournaments. It's fine if an individual wants to remove their info, but I did think it was lame that someone came through and cleared all of that info for every player in the tournament (I think I had matched a player to a deck for all 23 participants, but at least 20 of them were entered). Not too big of a deal, all the people who are on the forums have their handles entered so that's still there at least. But it would have been nice to be able to easily track how players do at multiple tournaments in each region (like the winner of Springfield's SC, Brett V., who was at the Tulsa tournament as well; which deck did he play in Tulsa? how well did he do? no way to find out now without tracking him down and asking).
I guess it really comes down to whether or not we think there is any merit to recording individual players or if we just want to collect data regarding deck popularity and success (in which case there is no need to record the player at all).
I greatly appreciated even just a letter. I have a bunch of names already and it made it much easier to find the people and their stats for record-keeping purposes. Unique identifies make data collection so much better!
#73
Posted 11 March 2014 - 12:46 AM

#74
Posted 11 March 2014 - 12:15 PM

#75
Posted 11 March 2014 - 12:38 PM

#76
Posted 11 March 2014 - 04:17 PM

#77
Posted 18 March 2014 - 02:43 AM

#78
Posted 19 March 2014 - 05:11 PM

#79
Posted 21 March 2014 - 01:03 AM

#80
Posted 21 March 2014 - 06:39 PM

Also, I figured out a better way than last name to track people. Put their home meta after their last letter initial. I've been doing it myself, but people who play in multiple metas will likely throw off my ability to track them, not that it really matters from anyone's perspective but my own.
