Articles are supposed to exist to present objective, valid information. Discussion is supposed to exist to discuss the articles.
That being said, here's the original content someone put in the article:
Possible Subject matters-
-Evaluation of collected data to determine how high a youth pull is in his relevent skills
-The true probability of pulling certain levels of youth pull
-Whether any factors on our part contribute to the quality of the youth pull ie time he's pulled etc
Youth pulling is a pure lottery. So don't cry, if you get the Xth bad player.
Anything below 'passable' is not worth to be put on the transfer market.
If you invest in your youth pull every week. Some people think it's best to pull keepers before the youth hits 'excellent'.
I had thought wiki was unmoderated... we do not need a pseudo moderator here editing every topic he is not in agreance with
Right. The whole purpose of a Wiki is to let everyone write "I want to say hello to my mom, dad, grandpa, grandma and my dog" on each and every page and for that to stay there, never to be edited out. The original content was THOUGHTS about what should be in the article, not valid and worthy information for an article. And a Wiki should at least TRY to present valid information.
A wiki should also should also not be moderated by every joe average that is in disagreance with what is being presented
There needs to be a balance... However, If you can't take it that you're ruthlessly being editted, then don't write here. (it's somewhere in the helpfile)
220.127.116.11 11:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Took out all references to the word junior squad....the English version of HT doesn't use that word.
Just wanted to mark about useless youth pulls - I wrote down in the begining that even "inadquate" pulls would be thrown away (unless pherhaps if we're dealing with young keepers) and I still hold that opinion. I challenge the moderation to "weak" under the "Plumbers and Golfers" section. Unless if you prove me wrong here (I'm not phanatic, it shouldn't be that hard really) I see no reason for me not to change it back to 'inad.' and I ask those who want to change it to 'weak' - please explain why not inad. with the exception of young keepers.--Just Y 00:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that there are four types of inadequate that sell, whereas a 'weak' will never sell. I think it's cleaner to say'weak' rather than 'inad, but with 4 exceptions...
The four types are
players that are inad in more than one skill
inad players with decent passing
early season 17 year old inads.
I won't change it back just yet, so I'll wait for your response!
Dancing rob 09:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's put aside the goalies, as both us agree on that group. Remaining are these:
inad. players with decent passing - as long as thier passing is no higher than "inad." (and that is what I meant by an inad. pull, not only primary attributes) I don't thing they'll be quite a hit.
I think that maybe changing (or is it so already? I'm not certain) it to "Even inad. pulls...bla bla.. are MOSTLY SENT.. bla bla.. would make a decent compromise.
--Just Y 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)