.com Forum · Alpha Dog Forum

Should we return to random judges. No more buying them, no more over use!
Just vote yes to end this.

Randomize judges

No		25.64%
YES		74.36%

A note on polls and consensus...

The threshold I'm requiring for things that impact everybody is 10% of the monthly active users (that would require ~160 votes on this site) and a differential outside of the margin of error.

Thanks for viewing.
should I mass pm everyone? how is a family account tallied?
Not all users come to the forum. What is the lifespan consideration of an active player; one month, just signed up for the day or 3 years.

The ones that care will vote, the ones that don't care, well then they just don't care.

We can change it to 100 votes for this site but yes, I do need to see more votes for a change like this.

Family accounts count 1 vote per username.

Also, I'm not sure if the alpha room rules still applies,,as the non premium users aren't supposed to see this.. Or can they?


Please please remember this is for random judges being picked, it has nothing to do with the judges using/liking handlers.

-----
Last edited by Studio Dogs on 10/25/2014 10:23:44 AM

Studio,

I have several issues with your poll. You've only sponsored 4 all breeds since 2011.

We barely have enough shows to fill the calendar a week out. Even with shows being as low as $400, folks still aren't putting money into sponsoring.

I see no point in fixing the issue that you have until We can fix the issue of lack of shows and show participation.

So please put your kennel money where your "mouth" is and sponsor my random judge shows. It will be a lot more helpful than a poll. And phone a friend to sponsor some too!

Here are my thoughts on show sponsorships all together:

1) Dump the current show system based on users sponsoring the shows. Have the game automatically drop shows randomly on the calendar with system picked judges.

2) If we keep the judge selection system: When a judge takes on the SDWC, he or she is automatically one of the retired judges for that month.

My questions for Jeff:
Are show sponsorships through the judge selection program creating enough of a money sink to help boost the current game economy/salary?

If polls help change major game policy and rules, I hope that ONLY premium players votes count.

Thanks for listen to my ramblings.

Any thoughts Studio on my suggestions?

Will

your welcome for even sponsoring that many shows. I used to be able to do specialties too, sigh.

Id love to know how to sponsor as many shows as "those folks" with full kennels. please let me in on the secret, and I would love to sponsor shows.

No I don't expect anything from Jeff, though it is getting boring around here with the same judges being played-- why bother?

Studio,

Do you have any suggestions to help fix the current judging system?

All I am reading is "Muh its not benefiting me so lets get rid of it."

I see 60 plus people have voted. Nobody wants to take a second to explain why you voted the way you did?

Will

1. can not truly evaluate my breeding program.
2. breeders, in my breed, are no longer-ish breeding for the standard, but for the wins. IE breeding for TNB instead of coat, or for gait size and feet, which are 5 points in my breed.
3. it makes this "competition game" almost pointless, no challenge and strategizing who to show, to what judge.
4. I don't even see the push in the forums anymore for payout sponsoring.

off the top of my head- is that enough reasoning or shall I think of some more?

ps, I did offer a solution. charge for handler free (500$) and use the same calculations, that was used to raise the cost of the judges, on the users that over buy hander free shows.

I think something ought to be changed so that there is a bigger variety of judges at the nightly shows... how about to change that, I'm not sure.
I would also like to see the cost of shows decreased or a minimum guaranteed income from the shows. I've sponsored one (in another account) but I don't have enough money in my accounts to do it on a regular basis as I enjoy having large breeding kennels.
I think having one show per night generated by the site with a random judge would help things out and add more diversity to the entries. but then again, I guess I don't know.

I have an awesome suggestion;

Let's just roll the time clocks back to 2003-2004 when we didn't have this issue. :/

As far as I know, the extra charge one is supposed to pay to choose specific judges does not work. I purposefully sponsored 3 shows and chose a specific judge, I should have been charged the amount for the shows, $400, $500 and $600 respectively, then I should have been charged $500 extra per show for the privilege of choosing a specific judge. The extra charge was never put through. Only the charges for the shows themselves. Therefore I believe the system to be broken as far as the charges go.

Perhaps if the charges for choosing Judges actually worked people wouldn't be able to pick the most popular judges as much as the cost would be prohibitive.

When I make shows I typically always use random judges as I don't much care which judges I get.

I would like to see the cost of sponsoring go down a little. Thereby reflecting the current need of shows and allowing more people to sponsor, since many people seem to have money problems on SD, $400 can be a lot for some.

I would also like random judges back- I had a feeling this would happen, and am not surprised that it DID happen, history repeating and all that...

Actually this is likely one of the reasons I haven't been as active- bought judges are just no fun, and a glut of one judge or one type of judge to the exclusion of others, means it's hard to do well unless you have just what THAT judge likes. That means all sorts of personal goals, become hard or impossible to obtain- whether that's group wins, or an occasional show placing, etc etc. I have also always ENJOYED the variety and extra complexity that handlers added. With no handlers, yes, you get an unbiased view of what the dog looks like against others (something I also value) but it gives you stagnant results after awhile. I always liked it better when the majority of shows were handler and you had to wait for the rare no-handler specialty to see how your dogs stacked up without that variable.

And of course, with so few active players, if you're going after MOST goals in the game, you have no choice but to enter in the most popular show of the day, and that is nearly always no-handler under the current system- and nearly always no-handler under only a small minority of judges since only a few judges are no-handler.

I also think the ability to "buy" judges allows players in a position of advantage to KEEP their advantage- if you're making money off show wins- directly (through winnings) or indirectly (through stud fees and sales because your dogs are winning) you have money to spend on shows, and the logical choice is to choose judges you like, and that place your dogs well- thus perpetuating the issue. Even if not blatantly- it is also just that players with dogs who do well under the current owner-handler judges will continue to win, and those with dogs who do not will continue to not, thus keeping the same small portion winning and not giving others a chance to move in based on a widely varied judges schedule.

I'd like to see it off the table entirely. The ONLY exception might be for specialties- but even then, I'd be ok with saying NO picking of judges, but just allowing you to specify no-handler under whatever random judge you draw.

Strong YES. Time to bring back random judges (or increase precent of shows that are random) AND the game needs to start sponsoring shows as well.

The purpose of the game is to show the dogs we bred. I still enter shows, but getting tired of the same ole judges as well as having no other shows to enter.

If there is no desire to randomize completely and alienate those who like to choose judges:

1. increase cost of choosing a judge or find a way to incent sponsors to choose to randomize
2. Game adds $5.00 shows with randomized judges so that there is a bit more choice in shows.
3. judge retires after judging World Cup (that alone might solve for the recurrent use of a few favorite judges)

And no, I do not sponsor all-breeds - I sponsor specialties as that's a bit more within my budget.

K

-----
Last edited by Kalynda on 10/26/2014 6:56:02 AM

@summerwind thank you for saying something. I had a feeling, but didn't have the funds to test it.

I realize being able to choose your judges, as in real life, is a great advantage, and even to infuance the WC. Huge incentive. But your right if it is broken it really makes it no fun for the rest of us. And that also explains why these sponsors can afford to sponsor hundred shows a month.... We'll sort of explains it.

Perhaps because I've just returned and I'm very excited about judges preferences and, specifically, owner-preferring judges, that I don't actually want randomization to come back. This could change with time, I suppose.

My concern, personally, is that there are no options available currently. I feel like more game-sponsored shows with randomized judges would solve this issue. Allowing players more choices in shows and judges to begin with would make things much more interesting.

Ok, well, I confess I haven't sponscored a show in some time but due to general inactivity here this kennel has some cash to spare so I have made two all breed shows for October and November.

I would have made more but I see that the price jumps considerably if you go further out. That I think is a big reason for not having shows to enter further out. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but's not a complaint, just an observation.

By the way, I 'hired' (randomly) Maria Cambell and Daniel Foster to judge. Both are not overt judges.

Cost - $400 and $600.


-----
Last edited by gaylanstudio on 10/26/2014 1:34:18 PM

Two new all breeds and specialties for English and American Cockers!

No Politics:
Total $900($400 + $500)for Andrew Lopez on Nov 1st

And

Non-Political:
Total $1200($700 + $500)for Marjory Moore on Nov 2nd

That's about all I can do for now (lol).

This probably won't format very well but here is a list of current judges and their 'Political' characteristics. There are 34 of them so I may be missing a few as I thought there were supposed to be 40 judges but anyway, for information . . .

Andrew Lopez   Not At All
Marjorie Moore  Not At All
Scott Jackson   Not At All
Amanda Mclean   Not Overt
Amanda Nava   Not Overt
Blanca Taylor Not Overt
Daniel Foster   Not Overt
Deborah Walker  Not Overt
Eileen Miller   Not Overt
Jolene Ramsey   Not Overt
Maria Campbell  Not Overt
Michelle Hamilton  Not Overt
Rogelio Overturf  Not Overt
Scott Person   Not Overt
Susan Sherman   Not Overt
Joseph Wilson Not Overt
Daniel Hall   Not Very
Erik Morris   Not Very
Ester Arriaga   Not Very
Jeff Dunbar   Not Very
Kevin Evans   Not Very
Lois Lund   Not Very
Maria Mohr   Not Very
Myron Carlo   Not Very
Sandra Grooms   Not Very
Sarah Brush   Not Very
Stephen Long   Not Very
Wilfredo Feaster  Not Very
Autumn Fuller Not Very
Bruce Bass   Owner
George Hunter   Owner
Rachel Barnette  Owner
Roosevelt Bomar  Owner
Stella Worley   Very

I've just created a number of shows and we now have 5 separate all breed shows for the 29th and 30th. I wonder if that is too many for the current level of activity. I would have made them more into the future – spread them out a bit but . . .

Because the base cost of shows goes up $100 a day as you go further into the future, I wonder if this is perhaps a concern.

When you create shows you are asked to select a date first then you are given the option to pick a judge. I wonder if it would help if first you pick a judge, or random, then a date and then if you have picked 'random' the cost would go down for the show itself, or just not go up into the future. If we then increased the percentage of 'owner judges' and perhaps 'not political at all' judges (yes, I'm biased there) that some of the problems we are seeing might be alleviated.

People pick owner-judges because they don't like handlers, either because they have difficulty getting the better ones or just don't want to be bothered. It doesn't really matter why they don't like handlers. Increasing the percentage of these judges would increase the likelihood of them coming up randomly and thus eliminate much of the attraction of selecting a judge. Perhaps then discontinuing the feature might be more practical and palatable.

(I’m sorry if this posting seems to be a hodgepodge of thoughts, but yes, it is what it seems.)