Waltons ThreadLord
Like requiring a zero on results for IR came from too many runners abusing IR; they'd request IR after a shortened long run and then ask to come off IR after results posted. IR isn't mean to cover for one bad run.
Is there a way to stop runners from abusing IR by not logging their runs until after results and then going on IR due to "zero" miles even though they really did run during the week? It would require some sort of retro-active look-back and change to the results, so I'm guessing the answer is "no" but thought I'd ask.
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: Running is Back 10k, 5/12; Greta's Run 5k, 5/19
She laughs at me......
Here's a little background on IR. Originally there wasn't a 0 week requirement. The honor system worked fine, until a new runner had an issue with the game and rules. After some months of not getting changes they wanted, they started posting ways to game the system. If someone will be short for the week, take IR that week and request to be removed after the next week's results.
The last few weeks of that year weren't too bad, but the first 3 weeks of the next year there were almost 40 on or off requests. There were two admins and it took both of us to keep up. It was not possible to continue at that pace. The 0 week rule was put in place week 4.
This is a great group, but any possible loophole is exploited without thought of the admins trying to run a fair game.
I would not consider that to be abusing IR. To me the reason for the zero rule is to make the runner take the request seriously—you’re forcing the team to take a zero, regardless of what you actually ran. I think it’s pretty typical when injured to have a run or two to test it out. I still want a record of those; I just don’t save them to my log till after the results.
Dave
That is correct.
Probably would have been better had I not brought it up. Sorry.
Former Bad Ass
I do the same. And normally end up being on IR 4-5 weeks more, making it 6 weeks total where I am not contributing to the team, starting with the 0 week where you realized something was wrong but you already ran some.
Damaris
Not a problem. Almost every rule plugs a hole a that resulted in a problem. You missed a lot of the ancient history of the game. If anyone has questions, please ask. It might help to understand the reasons things are the way they are.
#RunEveryDay
Absolutely ask. We want everyone to understand why the rules are the way they are. We don't mind explaining. In part that is why I included that in my post. I want this game to be pretty transparent so we are all on the same page.
Half Fanatic #9292.
Game Admin for RA Running Game 2023.
I “sorta” get the 0 week, but it can be a tough call. If you’ve been posting runs daily and get injured, say, Tuesday, you’ll hurt your team that week and the still need to be active the next week to post a 0. (If you post weekly, I suppose you could just not post those two days, but is that being “honest”?)
With the new(ish) rules about reaching goal before year end, being under goal in the playoffs can be a huge benefit to a team. As it is, getting “injured” is actually beneficial - as it keeps your mileage down - as ironic as that sounds. I know the rules are set, and not changeable during the year, but perhaps this should be looked at/debated some for possible future change. I know the game is played on the honor system, but I suspect IR is still being used for “down weeks” - maybe justifiably so? To me, the way to diminish the beneficial “loophole” would be to decrease a runner’s yearly goal by their weekly goal for every week they are on IR or just eliminate the over goal “penalty” at year end. Again, it is a bit odd - in a running game - to be penalized at year end for exceeding your goal. (That should be a good thing!)
FWIW, I think Meg has done a fantastic job in running the game and communicating results/issues/encouragement to teams and individuals. It can be a thankless job, but THANK YOU!!
If I got injured on Tuesday, I’d probably delete my runs for that week, and take that week as my zero for IR. If I got injured on Saturday, maybe I’d take the following week as zero. In any case, not sure I’d consider the first case “dishonest”—again in my mind just having a zero week on the books is the prerequisite for IR.
Yes this is true. But the whole idea of penalizing you for going over goal comes from trying to reduce sandbagging. The primary “honor system” factor in this game is goal-setting. This rule is a way to encourage people to set reasonably aggressive goals. It’s not perfect, but if there is a better way, I’m sure it can be discussed (and probably has already been considered at some point).
And to me using IR for “down weeks” is justifiable. You’ll only do it if you know it will be a long term reduced-mileage situation, due to the zero requirement.
I get the attempt at trying to reduce “sand-bagging”, and the difficulty of goal-setting. This is ultimately just a game, and we need to rely on each other’s honesty/integrity. Sandbagging and having a great year can look similar but are rooted in different motivations. As it is now, there are runners who have reached (or are just about to reach) half of their yearly goal (over two months early). Sandbagging or having a great year? Penalize or reward? If it was the end of the year this would be penalized, but now it is rewarded. Which should it be?
The game can certainly be a great motivator. I had a year when I ran about 600 miles (~45%) more than my highest year before (and since, too). I attribute ALL of that to the team I was on and the camaraderie/ communication/ motivation that came with it. — Fortunately, it came before the rule change! 😀
— Maybe it contributed to a rule change??? 🤔ðŸ˜
One possible solution (more difficult to implement) would be to have a “fluid” weekly goal. If you set a pace bunny on your home page, it tells you what you are projected to make at your current pace (based on your average so far). Let THAT be your goal. If you’re having a bad year, your goal goes down. If your doing great, it goes up - pushing you to do even better! (Of course, you would need to begin the year with a reasonable goal and implement this maybe 6-8 weeks in.) Just a thought.
Perhaps we could have a discussion thread devoted to just thoughts/discussion on possible game changes. There are many of us who have played for many years, and there are many new players. I think it’s great to get feedback from both. The game has evolved over the years and will probably continue to do so. New ideas (presented cordially/respectfully) should always be welcomed.
rectumdamnnearkilledem
One possible solution (more difficult to implement) would be to have a “fluid” weekly goal. If you set a pace bunny on your home page, it tells you what you are projected to make at your current pace (based on your average so far). Let THAT be your goal. If your having a bad year, your goal goes down. If your doing great, it goes up - pushing you to do even better! (Of course, you would need to begin the year with a reasonable goal and implement this maybe 6-8 weeks in.) Just a thought.
That's how it worked the first year I played (2016). After a 2 year hiatus it had changed to the current static goal...and I forget why. IIRC it was to prevent people who have taken time off for injury to be forced to overdo it when they're coming back and still fragile.
Getting the wind knocked out of you is the only way to
remind your lungs how much they like the taste of air.
~ Sarah Kay
Yep. Honestly if nothing else, the static goal is at least simpler—just one number to remember. One year we had a runner on my team who always put in their weekly miles but never communicated with the team or (presumably) paid much attention to the results. Unfortunately they were targeting annual goal/52, but it got shifted slightly via pace bunny calculation, so they came up about 1 mile short of green every week. Frustrating as a teammate!
I think hswiley was on my team, I know we were rather vocal about the 2 points/green in the playoffs. With the changing weekly number, it potentially created a situation where if someone on IR for a while, they had basically no shot of hitting green for the 2 points. If they dropped their goal to a reasonable amount based on the time missed, the weekly goal often became way less than what they were actually running (as in 200% they got 200% or more week after week).