The 2025 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

[SafeBet]

Could they make you a mod in name only just to circumvent this issue?

There are countless solutions but to me this is the one ensuring the highest participation rate.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Could they make you a mod in name only just to circumvent this issue?

We did propose this: I'm sure I speak for Cookster when I say we would have confidence in Skidmark to not abuse the status, but the 'higher-ups' were not keen. I'd be happy to ask again, and try to argue the advantages of it, but I'm not confident of a different answer.

3) Submit them through a mod somehow? That seems unwieldy but maybe there's something I'm not thinking of.

It wouldn't be very onerous to copy and paste team listings from one message to another (we moderators have also lost the capacity to copy others into a PM conversation), so that is a live option. (but don't be surprised if, in acknowledging your entries to Skidmarks game, I nag you to join my Women's and Emerging Riders' games that will be starting at about the same time.)

 

[RedheadDane]

(but don't be surprised if, in acknowledging your entries to Skidmarks game, I nag you to join my Women's and Emerging Riders' games that will be starting at about the same time.)

Well, the Women's Emerging Riders' game is Samu's game...

We did propose this: I'm sure I speak for Cookster when I say we would have confidence in Skidmark to not abuse the status, but the 'higher-ups' were not keen.

Why not?

 

[Shakes]

Game is kind of over so haven't prioritized fixing the site. Will do it before next season! As it happened at end of season I think it's due to I efficiencies in calculations as database probably got large and was made quickly and not super efficiënt.

Regarding team creation, I made something last year and can simplify it (to not require a login). Let me know if needed @skidmark

 

[Devil's Elbow]

I would consider making two options out of the three listed available, anything that goes against making it harder to submit should help with regards to participation levels.

 

[ingsve]

We did propose this: I'm sure I speak for Cookster when I say we would have confidence in Skidmark to not abuse the status, but the 'higher-ups' were not keen. I'd be happy to ask again, and try to argue the advantages of it, but I'm not confident of a different answer.

That sort of sounds like a no out of convenience. The easiest thing to do is to say no to things, even without compelling reasons for it, since you don't really risk anything by saying no. Perhaps if pressed to give a coherent reason for saying no it would make it harder to simply reject the proposal out of laziness and convenience.