I've got no problem with it. I'd certainly prefer the devil I know than the one I don't. What's wrong with him being the editor as opposed to joe bloggs off the street which it'd have been otherwise.
Well "changed large parts of it" kind of implies that. You wouldn't have said "large parts" if you weren't heavily involved in the changing of the database. You never give away more than you need to.
Meaning it's unavoidable. Whereas you could have avoided it. And you could have said, I either don't want to run it cause I want to be a team selector or I won't be a selector.
Of course. He took some 17 year old kid's database and saw a few shit things. Any solo person will make biased ratings. He's changed them to make them more realistic. Do you really doubt Eds's character that much to think he'd self serve in that way. I've completely created the database for cpl afl. Nobody's complained at all because, to be fair, I watch more afl than anyone on the site and probably most people on the internet, you'd want me doing it. Same with Eds, I'm sure he'd do a fantastic and unbiased job.
Do you have a team in CPL AFL? If so, I seriously reckon that's shit too. Just my opinion. It without doubt gives you an advantage - you know the abilities of all the players. I don't really give a shit about integrity of changes - he knows the changes, we don't. So he bids more on players the changes favour. If you don't see how that's a big advantage then meh.
The changes are based on players that have played well/poorly this season. Those who watch the players will know who has been changed. Would you rather we used a 11/12 DB?
I'm not questioning his character in the sense that I'm sure he won't have actually changed players ratings... But he'll have more of an inclination as to who plays well and who doesn't, when talking about the players that aren't Messi or Ronaldo.
I'd rather a database that doesn't put anyone at an advantage, yeah. And the "if you've watched, you'll know" debate is just wrong. There's always a degree of subjectivity in editing that sort of thing.
What you're saying relies on the inherent premise that both eds and I in our creation/edits will place personal biases in place. If that's not the case, then nobody has anything to worry about as our unbiased database accurately reflects the respective sport. I know in my case I had four different people surveyed for ratings on players and averaged them to determine a player's rating. My opinion counted for 25%. I believe they reflect the sport well, and nobody's complained. Better me having a slight advantage than no league at all. Same here. I hardly think Eds is at an advantage anyway, the ratings are based on real life, so we're all equal. If Ribery bangs in 40 goals in 25 games we might need to a little but really, i'm sure it's fine. You're being overly paranoid here.
It's not solely my opinion though. As I'm sure Teacups will tell you from our discussions, I'm happy to admit if there's football I haven't watched and I've largely trusted his judgement on certain leagues because I simply don't watch them. And anyway, I'm bored of this. If you think it's unfair then no-one is forcing you to play. It's a bit of fun.