^lol
Dave
I don't mind administering the game, but I don't want to be the owner with sole or arbitrary decision making power. How do people feel about: The voluntary setting of higher goals (e.g. Dan's 10 miles/week) Capping weekly points at 15 rather than 20 (i.e. 150% of target rather than 200% of target)
I don't mind administering the game, but I don't want to be the owner with sole or arbitrary decision making power. How do people feel about:
1. I agree.
2. No strong opinion, I'd be fine either way.
I'm good with whatever decision is made. I'm just glad to be able to participate. But I agree that if the game is going to be yearly (I hope so) that somehow new runners can be brought in. A brand new runner may not have any data so not sure how to accommodate this?
If someone has zero history, I don't think we can. A big part of why this game was developed as an alternative to the main forum game was to automate the goal-setting, and not worry about sandbagging or whatever. What would a brand new runner's goal even be based on? In any case, this group has "Beginners" in the title, but we haven't had any beginners in a very long time. I don't think it's worth worrying about too much - hard to imagine someone just starting out even finding this place.
The voluntary setting of higher goals (e.g. Dan's 10 miles/week) Capping weekly points at 15 rather than 20 (i.e. 150% of target rather than 200% of target)
1. I think this seems reasonable--I think this came up last year too. If you had a down year in the 3 used, it skews the average (says the person with a down year in 2020).
2. I like this idea. I think it keeps the results a bit tighter.
And that person ended up not getting his goal changed, and ended up winning the whole thing.
I think this came up last year too. If you had a down year in the 3 used, it skews the average
The old game admin was a washed up, over the hill, long in the tooth relic who had to have his way whatever the others said. Might as well have been arguing with a wall.
5K Specialist
It would seem to me that it should be ok to use a number GREATER than your three year average. Sandbagging would be trying to use a lessor number.
Personal Bests:
800M - 2:38 (5/28/13) | 1 Mile -5:54 (5/28/13) | 3K - 11:55 (12/29/12) | 2M - 13:00 (12/1/12) | 5K - 20:00 (4/12/13) | 13.1M - 1:37:24 (2/3/13)
Waltons ThreadLord
I'll plug in 10 miles for Dan's goal and we'll see how it goes. As noted, we may need some tweaks to keep this interesting and fun, but I'd rather try small, incremental changes than start making multiple alterations. The change will show up in next week's score report and be retroactive to the start of the year.
One other change I'm considering - you can't win the consistency title by running zero miles every week.
5k 23:48.45 (3/22); 4M 31:26 (2/22); 5M 38:55 (11/23); 10k 49:24 (10/22); 10M 1:29:33 (2/24); Half 1:48:32 (10/22); Marathon 4:29:58 (11/23)Upcoming races: Scotch Plains 5k, 6/12; Firecracker 4-miler, 7/4
Former Bad Ass
I'll plug in 10 miles for Dan's goal and we'll see how it goes. As noted, we may need some tweaks to keep this interesting and fun, but I'd rather try small, incremental changes than start making multiple alterations. The change will show up in next week's score report and be retroactive to the start of the year. One other change I'm considering - you can't win the consistency title by running zero miles every week.
There goes my chance!
Damaris
I feel attacked! LOL
OK but we should come up with a special award for that.
Are we there, yet?
The DNS award?
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K, 9:11:09 06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.
The donut hole award?
The Zero the Hero award?
The Golden Goose Egg?