Marking elite players

[solenoozerec]

The discussion that is going in the poll thread "Planning games in advance" directed me to create another poll.

Mistfit: “I get no pleasure out of all of the guessing and mis-information given out in the pregame thread. What I enjoy is the informed starting information we get from our elite players.”
Ainwood: “...the whole idea is to try and get informed starting information from our elite players, but I think that the new players really contribute a lot too...”

I agree with Ainwood, that both kinds of players greatly contribute to pre-game discussion. However, I thought that it might be nice to know what kind of information you are reading, a solid piece of information from an elite player or just a guess from somewhat new player.
The same applies to spoilers. I enjoy spoilers from the players of very different ranks. However, while spoilers from elite players often can be very informative and useful for increasing my own skills, spoilers from other players are mostly entertaining and curious.
When I do not have enough time, I do not read every post in a thread, I just make sure that I do not miss any of SirPleb’s posts. Nevertheless, I am pretty sure that this way I am missing many other important points from other strong players.
Therefore, I suggest marking elite players. I also think that this marking should depend not on the performance during the play (awards or global rating), but on how well they contributed to the discussions which are going in GOTM forum.
I searched through old threads and I found out that some time ago, there were “Player’s choice” polls, like this one: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=89911

Such polls can be used to determine who should be marked as people to whom we should listen very carefully

 

[vanatteveldt]

To avoid too much subjectivity I'd just go for a player ratings if anything.

Then again, after seeing a couple of GOTMs you know who gets high scores and who don't, and you don't want to have everybody skipping everything except for the "elite" posts, or being being afraid to disagree with "elite" players. Ergo: my vote goes for "I can determine for myself"

 

[Randy]

No don't do the elite post, I know the elite players. And who I think maybe elite some one else may not.

 

[solenoozerec]

To avoid too much subjectivity I'd just go for a player ratings if anything.

Rating is no good. Check out Aeson's rating, for example, it is something like 153rd. I doubdt that anyone will argue about Aeson being an elite player.

 

[vanatteveldt]

Which is why I don't think we need a rating... most of us know who the elite players are, and if you don't you figure out soon enough...

 

[ainwood]

The 'players choice' awards were designed to improve the quality of the content in the spoilers. Not just in terms of more strategy, but equally in terms of making them more interesting. Since then we've seen people writing epic tales instead of just listing what they did.

In terms of identifying 'elite players', it kind-of goes against the aims of the site (CFC) and the competition. For this reason, Thunderfall certainly wouldn't support it.

For my own take, I think that if some players were marked as 'elite', then that might stop others from contributing, because they'd feel that their ideas are being ignored.

 

[akots]

Also, having QSC data would certainly help with the opening moves for players who would want to analyze them and optimize their start. The problem is that for some games QSC is important but for others not very important. I gave up on QSC and am not submitting it any longer. Probably wrong decision but it greatly speeds up the turns since you don't have to keep the log.

And first spoiler and some others indeed often turned out to be the competition of fancy stories and epic tales, so I quit reading them essentially with a few exceptions. What hurts the first spoilers is lack of subsequent QSC data.

 

[ainwood]

Also, having QSC data would certainly help with the opening moves for players who would want to analyze them and optimize their start. The problem is that for some games QSC is important but for others not very important. I gave up on QSC and am not submitting it any longer. Probably wrong decision but it greatly speeds up the turns since you don't have to keep the log.

Well, there's not much incentive to submit the QSC when its not being scored and the results fed-back...