CTP Ratings (03-FEB-2001)
This Thread is Closed
Call to Power -- Play-by-Email Ratings and Rankings
As of: 11-FEB-2001
(updated every Sunday at 23:00 Apolyton Time)
RANK NAME................... RATING WIN. LOSS NAT.TR
0001 KLAIR.................. 22.979 0021 0000 FRA...
0002 MOBIUS................. 22.935 0015 0000 GBR.EN
0003 STAVROS................ 22.440 0024 0007 GER...
0004 FRANSES................ 21.612 0005 0000 NED...
0005 SWISSY................. 21.469 0003 0000 USA.IL
0006 SLAMP.................. 21.334 0019 0005 FRA...
0007 BLACKICE............... 21.131 0004 0001 CAN.ON
0008 RICK_ELKINS............ 21.127 0008 0007 USA.NY
0009 KRALJ_MATJAZ........... 20.657 0014 0001 SLO...
0010 ST_JON................. 20.415 0024 0025 GBR.EN
0011 LUNG................... 20.384 0009 0006 AUS.SW
0012 MAX_WEBSTER............ 20.252 0012 0009 CAN...
0013 KEYGEN................. 20.131 0000 0003 GRE...
0014 AAGINOR................ 20.032 0009 0009 GER...
0015 PAUL................... 19.904 0008 0013 NED...
0016 DARTH_VIPER............ 19.767 0001 0004 NED...
0017 THE_TRUE_DEMOSTHENES... 19.114 0003 0018 GBR.EN
0018 KING_THOR.............. 19.077 0015 0021 USA.FL
0019 420.................... 18.950 0000 0000 USA.IL
0020 DUCK_HUNTER............ 18.688 0006 0015 USA.FL
0021 QUINNS................. 18.637 0018 0025 USA.CA
0022 THEBIRDMAN............. 18.017 0019 0026 DEN...
0023 ELROND................. 17.900 0000 0000 GER...
0024 FRAZE.................. 17.464 0004 0024 GBR...
0025 SOLVER................. 17.424 0006 0018 LAT...
0026 KRASH.................. 17.410 0004 0006 GBR.EN
0027 NOTUNCOMMON............ 17.374 0003 0006 DEN...
0028 ARTHUR................. 17.114 0002 0017 USA.UT
0029 YETI................... 16.262 0001 0005 USA.WI
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I become rated? Simply post, to this thread, the highest level of victory that you ever attained, (Chieftain, Warlord, Prince, King, Emperor, or Deity), in a "single player" game of Call to Power. That's it! You'll see your name appear on the above list within a week.
How do the ratings change? See the below CTP Ratings Links section for an in depth discussion.
On whose turn should the Power Graph be reported? It doesn't matter because the Power Graph remains the same during the cycle of the turn. However, we recommend that the 1st player (blue) always report the Power Graph results.
Adjustments to Ratings
New Players to Add: Maestro(19)
Pending *9th Turn Processing: Lungs_Fast(119), Team Spirit(29).
Pending Elimination: Aaginor in: R2_Islands, Conquer, Do Some PBEM, Giant Bird.
Pending Delinquency Adjustment (-.1):
Current Rated Games In Progress (rating started on turn)*:
1. R2_Islands(0) - Solver, Fraze, King Thor, Kralj Matjaz, Quinns.
2. Love_Conquers?(50) - St Jon, Mobius, The True Demosthenes, Stavros, Rick Elkins, Quinns.
3. Eagles_at_War(0) - TheBirdMan, Solver, Kralj Matjaz, Notuncommon, Fraze, Krash, Arthur, Quinns.
4. Lung's_Fast(86) - Lung, Stavros, Paul, St Jon, TheBirdMan.
5. Do_Some_PBEM(49) - Solver, TheBirdMan, Aaginor, Paul, Krash, (Stavros).
6. Fixed_Game(30) - King Thor, Stavros, (St Jon), Keygen, Quinns.
7. Team_Horses(0) - Arthur, Darth Viper, Blackice, Quinns, Franses, The True Demosthenes.
8. Monkey_1(187) - Yeti, (Robm), Swissy, (Duck Hunter), Slamp, Paul, (Max Webster), (Fraze).
9. Monkey_2(226) - Yeti, (Greeks - eliminated), (Max Webster), (Germans - A/I), Lung, Paul, (Zaphod), (TheBirdMan).
10. Conquer!!!(23) - (Bilhq), TheBirdMan, Aaginor, Stavros, Paul, King Thor, (Jafo).
11. Giant_Bird(29) - TheBirdMan, (Stavros), Notuncommon, Franses, Aaginor, (King Thor).
12. Dutcheese(119) - (Fraze), TheBirdMan, Klair, Duck_Hunter, Max_Webster King_Thor, Slamp, St_Jon.
13. Youngbloods(0) - 420, Darth_Viper, Kralj Matjaz, Phoenixcager, BerXpert, Blackice.
14. Fly High(29) - TheBirdMan, Notuncommon, Krash, (Fraze), King_Thor, (Arthur), (Bilhq).
15. Team Spirit(29) - Stavros, Franses, Keygen, Arthur, Maestro, TheBirdMan, Swissy, King Thor
* A player in parentheses is unrated in that game.
-----------------
Related CTP PBEM Ratings Links
TENPL639_AM --- Rankings for Apolyton Call to Power Play-by-Email (PBEM).
TENPL641_AM --- History of Ratings for Apolyton Call to Power PBEM.
TEN619_AM --- *9th Turn Game Results for Apolyton Call to Power PBEM.
RATINGS FORMULAS --- Formulas Used in Determining Ratings Calculations.
SOLVER'S PBEM CHARTS Download --- Charts Related to CTP Players Wins and Losses.
PBEM LADDERS thread --- Early Discussions on the Foundation of the CTP PBEM Rating System.
POWER GRAPH INTERPRETED --- Discussions on Call to Power's Power Graph.
-----------------
TENPL639_AM Report Legend:
NAT.TR - Nation and Territory of Primary Residence.
PBEM RATING - Starts with an initial value depending upon the highest CtP AI level ever honestly defeated: Chieftain=14; Warlord=16; Prince=17; King=18; Emperor=19; Deity=21. This rating changes by winning or losing to other rated players, (at the *9 turn mark every ten turns), while playing "rated" PBEM games. See the CtP Multiplayer topic "PBEM Ladders" for details on how this rating change is calculated.
-------------------
TEN619_AM Report Concepts:
Win/Loss - - A Win counts by having a "higher" Power Graph rating at the ten turn mark during a "rated" game. For example, in a five player game, at the ten turn mark, each player will receive four results - 4 wins and 0 losses, or 3 wins and 1 loss, etc.
Delinquency - 24 or more hours late counts as a delinquency. Each delinquency deducts -0.1 ratings points from player's rating.
Inactive Adjustment - Players will lose 5/100ths of a ratings point (-0.05) for each month they go without a ratings adjustment, (i.e. remain inactive in the ratings for an entire month).
-----------------
Elimination Rule
If, in a rated game, a player:
a) resigns;
b) changes status from "rated" to "unrated";
c) gets annihilated; or
d) gets "next turned" for three turns in a row,
then every remaining player in that game "DEFEATS" THAT PLAYER THREE TIMES (as measured by the normal ten turn phase defeat).
For example, in a 5 player game, the first person who gets "eliminated from the ratings in that game" would be "defeated" 12 times (as measured by the normal power graph 10 turn defeat), (3 multiplied by 4 remaining players.) This equates to an average decrease in ratings of about 2 to 3 points for the eliminated player. The second player eliminated would be defeated 9 times (3 multiplied by 3 remaining players), ... etc.
In the case of resignation or three consecutive "next turns", then that resigned player's civilization will be "next turned" until a replacement player, (either rated or unrated), takes over that civilization's control.
-----------------
Alien Life Victory Rule
If a player wins by completing the alien project, that player defeats every remaining player three times.
-----------------
Rating Change Table: - (example +2 to -2)
DIFFERENCE.. RATING
IN RATINGS.. CHANGE (+ for winner, - for loser)
+2.0 ........ 0.083
+1.5 ........ 0.118
+1.0 ........ 0.167
+0.5 ........ 0.222
=0.0 ........ 0.250
-0.5 ........ 0.278
-1.0 ........ 0.333
-1.5 ........ 0.382
-2.0 ........ 0.417
*** NOTICE TO ALL GAME STARTERS IN RATED GAMES ***
Please post all of your turn *9 power graph results to the latest CTP Ratings thread (this thread). (I don't look at all of the game threads in progress.)
Also, a reminder that all APPLICATIONS FOR NEW RATED GAMES need to be posted here with:
1. Official game name;
2. Player list (in turn order) of all players' APOLYTON HANDLES (no nick names please). Place players that wish to be "unrated" in parentheses;
3. All desired rated players must have a current rating -- (please state their initial rating if they do not have a current rating).
4. The current turn number;
5. The turn number you want the game to become "rated".
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 18, 2001).]
Ratings updated.
Congratulations to Klair for taking over first place and setting an all time high rating for CTP PBEM!
That triple DUTCHEESE game results caused Klair to climb high and TheBirdMan to fall hard. Too bad Birdman. What goes up, must come down.
Woah.. the only woman in the Ratings chart and she has to be on top.
We shall have Klair down again - or loose
Total war in DC now.
But why was the result tripled?
Edit: Don't answer, the game was rated backwards to turn 119?
Edit-edit: Turn 119 was my first turn in DC. The ratings send in t this checkmark would be for turn 109 upto and including 118, right?
By turn 137 or 138, I left the "dumboplace" to Frazer. I think Slamp reported me as last on all, also at turn 139, didn't he?
[This message has been edited by TheBirdMan (edited February 04, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by TheBirdMan (edited February 04, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by TheBirdMan (edited February 04, 2001).]
What? How could TheBirdMan fall so much down? Which results caused that? I'm in schock, actually. Currently going to download the report in order to update the charts.
------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com
Actually I am surprised too.
Quinns - could you send me a mail/excelsheet showing me the exact changes from each game from the last week?
I know that DC would make it hard for to keep in lead (last, last and secondlast) -
but I also had a first and a second place from two other games this week.
If this hit as hard as shown, I need to think more about actual being rated in Monkey 2
Now I can see that I should not have agreed to let me be rated here, as all I started with was to very small cities and armed with a few phalanx and a trireme while the others had tanks and warwalkers
If I do, I know I would have to take my "penalty" for changing minds.
[This message has been edited by TheBirdMan (edited February 04, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by TheBirdMan (edited February 04, 2001).]
Lung deathmatch 3 is a rated game too. Proposal from Demos, accept from me.
Agreed by Lung (gameowner) on the 22. january 2001 (post on the topic from him).
Starting turn 86
Playerlist:
TheBirdMan - romans
(Mobius - spanish) I have put Mobius on ( ) as I cannot find his accept of getting rated. But he might have answered Demos or Lung direct.
TheTrueDemosthenes - welsh.
Report for turn 89, played the 25. january 2001:
TheBirdman
(Mobius)
TheTrueDemosthenes.
BirdMan I think the reason you lost so many points is because 7 other players beat you in DC. I mean look at me, I was 17 or something, so due to the way the scoring system is, if I beat you, I take more of your points than someone who is in second place. I think you lost a whole bunch of points because my PG is ahead of yours in the game. I didn't move any spots up though because the otehr players in the game beat me.
To all questioning the Dutcheese triple effect:
Thor is pretty close to exactly stating it. Birdman and Solver, please refer to the Additional Report Link called TEN619 above. This report has the details you requested for all results since the beginning, (the ratings shown are the "before match" ratings at that time). The dates shown are NOT in order of how the ratings were calculated, due to the back rating of some games.
And Solver, why must you always undermine the system with your comments without consulting me first?? I'm starting to tire of you being the ever powerful "CTP Ladder Administrator" -- nothing but whining and no help with the actual work.
The numbers are accurate. Dutcheese was tripled due to Slamp's reporting of turns 119, 129, 139. If Birdman needs to be adjusted, this is a real pain in the a**! Somebody out there who understands statistics (as well as this rating system) (Paul, King Thor, Keygen... somebody??) please give me some suppport on the difficulty of BACK calculating this already rippled effect system.
Sorry Birdman, the best I can do, (if Slamp agrees) is to give you a one time adjustment upward to account for the possible error of Slamp including you when you shouldn't have been. I hate to do this, as it sets a precedent and causes future contention with even the most minor disagreements -- and creates more work for me! Remember, all my work is voluntary. I'm not getting a dime for my time. I don't mind doing it, but if it is going to be just "whiner appeasement" time from now on, I might reconsider.
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 04, 2001).]
I have mailed this to the DC players and Quinns and Solver:
Bird.
***
2 Q:
1st: Do I need glasses (some would probably say YES). I do not have any turn in archive between 135 and 140, but when I look at the PG for turn 140 I am clearly over Fraze and have been that for some turns.
Do any (preferable Fraze) have turn 139 and if, pls post who is last.
2nd: I don't think King Thor and I should be rated for turn 119. King Thor because his first turn was around 124-125 and me because my first turn was at 119.
If I have read the rules correct, it IS the FIRST player (Fraze in this game) that should report on turn *9, this time on 119 - the report therefore covers turns played BEFORE turn 119. By this, I should not be rated on turn 119.
***
Comments?
Edit:
And I wrote this on Monkey 2:
I am withdrawing from the ranked players in this game.
I will be too costly (just take a look at the ratings due to a replacement in DC).
This will probably cost me another penalty - but I will survive
Now we shall see if Quinns will take me as an example and have me "executed"
[This message has been edited by TheBirdMan (edited February 04, 2001).]
I have just read the start of the topics on the rating system.
I think we need a follow-up on, who and when ratings are reported.
From what I read now, it seems like it should be the LAST player, that reported on the *9 turns.
But if so, what about the moves this last player makes on his/shes own *9 turn? When will this be added to the PG? At turn *0 when the first player open his/shes turn? Is the last player always "a turn after the others"?
I am just wondering - and that might be the reason why I (always had) thought, that it was the first player, who made the report. But it does look, that I'm wrong here.
Bird
Edit (what a day for Quinns).
To something completely different:
I think we are missing a little information in the weekly report:
We have:
Pending *9th Turn Processing:
Pending Delinquency Adjustment (-.1):
But I think we should have:
Pending *9th Turn Processing:
Pending Delinquency Adjustment (-.1):
Processed *.9th turns: (examples)
DC turn 119 Klair,,,,,,
DC turn 129 Klair,,,,,Fraze,TheBirdMan
DC turn 139 Klair,,,,,TheBirdMan,Fraze
Do some Pbem turn 49 TheBirdMan,,,,,,
... etc, then we could see which games you actually have recieved and what has been reported since last ratingday.
[This message has been edited by TheBirdMan (edited February 04, 2001).]
BirdMan, the powergraph is calculated at the start of the first player's turn and will be the same for all players. So when you look at the powergraph as the 7th player you will see the exact same powergraph that the first player saw. So it doesn't matter which player reports the ..9th turn powergraph.
I also remember reading somewhere that the powergraph is one or two turns behind. Anyway, if you only joined a game at the ..9th turn your play will have had no influence on that turn's powergraph and as far as I'm concerned you should therefore not be rated for that turn.
Yes, thanks Paul. As usual, you are 100% correct. The Power Graph remains the same for all players throughout the cycle of the turn. And there is exactly a two turn lag on the Power Graph. (You can prove both of these aspects to yourself, Birdman, by playing all 3 players in a test hot seat game.)
Birdman and Slamp, please resolve this contested Dutcheese problem and let me know what you come up with. I would be happy to give Birdman a credit to his rating if there was indeed an error. Please note that this is somewhat of a pain, and the next time any *9th turn is reported by anybody, I beg you all to make sure it is accurate first.
I would like comments on Keygen's well intentioned proposals above. Even though I believe his ideas would be too SUBJECTIVE in a game and very open to controversy, I always welcome CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.
Your forever humble servent (NOT!) ---
Quinns
Birdman, I have taken your advise and... from this point forward ... I'll show which game and turn number was rated in the TEN619_AM report (under Additional Report Links above). Good idea. I've been meaning to add that, but your prompting got me to actually do it. I've only allowed 12 characters for the new column (Game Name) which will include the first 8 letters of the game name plus the turn number.
(Oh, and Birdman, the rule is that you need at least THREE rated players that are being RATED IN THE GAME in order for the game to be a RATED GAME. This disqualifies Lung's Death Match until you convince Mobius to also be rated. Sorry.)
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 04, 2001).]
Actually, I second what Keygen has to say about inherited nations - they should not be rated.Originally posted by Keygen on 02-04-2001 12:56 PM
And by choosing on which games we will be rated and which not will surely not show the true ability of a player. Except if he has inherited a nation in a bad situation as I guess BirdMan has.
Accually in that case the player shouldn't get rated at all! Even if the inherited nation is in a very good shape but the game is in a late stage.
Just as Birdman has suffered from the Monkey ratings, he seeks to be rated for a game (Lung DM3) where the previous player Shavlor had already effectively won the game...
Players should neither benefit from, or be penalised by inheriting positions in games...
My 2 cents...
Keep up the good work Quinns!
First, I would like to mention that I and probably everyone else here very much appreciate the work that quinns and Solver are doing. So, I think, quinns that we are not trying to wine to you at all but the effect the last ratings had on Birdman are well... impressive.
To the discussion I want to add that developing a rating system that is accurate (in the sense that the best player gets the highest rating) for CTP, using the power chart every 9th turn, is almost impossible. I do not know how things are in your case but when I play deity I am always one of the last on the power chart for at least the first 100 turns. And I always win if I want to. This means that the power chart just is not a good measure of the real position of the player in the game.
I know why the current system (using intermediate results) has been developed and I agree with the reasons behind it. However, expecting that this will result in the best players getting the highest ranking is, in my opinion, a false expectation.
Changing the current system now is, I think, to early. Perhaps we should just gather more data and decide then what to do. One thing that is plain clear for me is that we will have to alter the effect of wins and losses at the end of a game. Perhaps we should come to something like: during the game you can win or lose x rating points max while winning the game gives 3x rating points for the winner. 2x for the runner up and so on.
Franses
[This message has been edited by Franses (edited February 04, 2001).]
Franses,
Please refer to the Elimination Rule and Alien Life Project rule in the first thread of this forum. This already covers the "end of the game" that you mention. As far as the Power Graph goes... no one ever said it was completely accurate. It does not take into account Advances or the number of Cities a nation has. It only reflects CONSTRUCTED (and still living) BUILDINGS, WONDERS, AND UNITS -- that's it -- that's why we are always behind in the beginning against the A/I. You are losing points by building cities with your settlers and not gaining anything from your advances from science via gold, nor from population growth. (Refer to the CTP Multiplayer thread entitled POWER GRAPH INTERPRETED.)
We had a very long discussion about this in the beginning of the rating system and we all decided that THE POWER GRAPH WAS THE ONLY THING WE HAD. If you can think of a SIMPLE, ACCURATE, and FAIR method for rating someone in a game, please let us know. I really don't mind changing it to a good system, but I haven't read anything solid that challenges this existing system yet. Criticisms are easy... it is coming up with a real working system to replace it that is hard.
(edit: ... and thanks, Mobius, for the encouraging words!)
Quinns
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 05, 2001).]
Man, you have fallen 4 points in one week!
This takes you from the 1st position on the 20th in one week!!!
And imagine that I am currently playing in four games where only in one game I am the last and this is the only rated game where I play in.
This could take me straigh down to the bottom of the charts in a few weeks!
I think the system itself does not forgive any of the low charts in a game.
If someone is winning and someone is losing the difference between them gets extremely large!
Think of two players playing in a rated game where the one player is slightly behind the other even if he wins the game he won't beat him in the charts
Such big ups and downs to the positions looks anoying to me.
I have to suggest two things to the rating system:
1. Players only wins points. They do not lose any. This way players will only surpass others and not drop down to the bottom like a tomato.
2. By wining a game should significantly rise winner's points.
Two more issues for discussion:
1. Whether a player should get points on how many opponents is beating on the CTP charts or just the average of these "wins". This would eliminate the fact that some players who play in 2-3 rated games where they have high scores would beat the players who play in 1-2 rated games and have high scores too. I know that a player who is involved in many games and has high scores that has more chances to be truly the best but there is a chance a player involved in less games to be better than him.
2. The only time that a player would lose points should be according to the Elimination Rule only.
Quinns is right!
It is a hard job and he is doing it for us!
Don't break his...you know
.
Keygen, Birdman didn't fall 4 points in one week. He fell 4 points in 4 months (since November 2000). Remember, Dutcheese was BACK RATED from November for THREE eight player game results, where he was last in each of them. That is a huge number of losses... 21! Don't jump to conclusions on changing a working system because of a single example of back dated adjustments. The Birdman was right, he shouldn't have agreed to Dutcheese being rated for him if it was an unfair position. I've already agreed to adjust his rating if Slamp agrees.
Quinns
Thanks Keygen! I appreciate your support!!
OK Quinns, it's your show.
Maybe I am wrong and I wish I am but just keep them in mind.
The next two or three months will be a test for the rating system.
And by choosing on which games we will be rated and which not will surely not show the true ability of a player. Except if he has inherited a nation in a bad situation as I guess BirdMan has.
Accually in that case the player shouldn't get rated at all! Even if the inherited nation is in a very good shape but the game is in a late stage.
LOL
I just wanted to support you!! I understand that you interpreted it differently. I wrote sentences as: "I appreciate your work", "I know why the current system (using intermediate results) has been developed and I agree with the reasons behind it" and "Changing the current system now is to early". We do not have sufficient data. So, I am almost completely behind what you said in your last post. Sorry that I have not been clear enough.
The only part that I deviate a bit was that I believe that we might have to think again later about the rating of the relation between intermediate- and end-results. This to overcome the effects the current system had on Birdman. How? I do not know yet. We need much more data before we can define a solution and perhaps we even won't be able to. Therefore my implicit statement was not to change the current system.
Hope this more clarifies my support for you.
Franses
[This message has been edited by Franses (edited February 05, 2001).]
I have been looking "behind" the ratings (one of the links) and it seems fair.
But I do have a proposal: NEVER-NEVER again rate a game backwards.
I will climb up again, be sure of that
As for turn 119 in DC and the actual position in turn 139, I'll wait to Slamp is back. Now I think back, I was only sub for Sophix from turn 119 to 124-125, so I really didn't change anything in the setup of the english those turns.
[This message has been edited by TheBirdMan (edited February 05, 2001).]
Ok, sign me up.
I have beaten the game in single player at Diety. I am in Monkey1 and want that rated.
Sorry Franses. I guess I was in a defensive mood when I answered your thread. Thanks for your support also! I suppose I was getting tired of convincing everyone of the benefits of the system. I didn't mean for it to sound so harsh. Your points are well taken. I am always open to improvements to the system. But I am also careful of CHANGING a system in mid stream (without a very good reason) as this causes confidence to be lost in the system, (similar to the United States Legislature
Birdman, I have a tendancy to agree with you on this "back rated" problem that happened. If others agree with this "no back rated games" policy, from now on, then we will make that one of our rules. I'm sure you'll climb back to the top soon enough. Maybe this was a very good lesson for us all to be very careful about reporting results and becoming rated in games that are hopelessly lost.
Quinns
Franses,
Actually I think that developing an all-around good and completely fair ratings system is impossible for any game - is it CtP, football or chess. The only real measure to see if A is better then B - let them play a couple of games each vs. other and see it then.
Chess - even though Kramnik is now the World Champion, many and many people still consider Kasparov being the best chess player.
Football - France are World and Europe champions, but Brazilians still have a higher rating.
CtP - someone is behind on the powergraph, but in a very good position.
I have an excellent example of this in my game of R2_Islands, where I am the last on the powergraph. I have lost 2 units to barbarian hordes, and that might be what sent me down, but I am sending explorers and Settlers to another Island, while I'm sure there's someone who hasn't yet even built a ship.
The reason of developing this system, is, of course fun. I don't think one should be really upset if his rating goes down. TheBirdMan was in an excellent winning position on the ratings table, now he's much more lower. Does he cry? No. He keeps joking about it.
And, you say it might be possible to rate the game at it's end. Go to the PBEM Ladders thread and see the first post there - that was the origianal idea, but then the ratings would remain static for periods of at least two month, while now each week we are seeing changes. Static ratings would completely kill all the system, as it is.
However, I will greatly appreciate suggestions on how to improve the system, of course. Just my comments on the subject.
------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com
I agree
OK quinns. You were not the only one who misunderstood me
Solver, I agree with you regarding the difficulty of developing a fair and accurate rating system BUT... you have gone down in my appreciation. Everybody knows that the Dutch have the best soccerteam. Why don't you?
Let's continue having fun,
Franses
I agree with Solver in his comments.
Swissy, you are now in the ratings... welcome! I will add you to the list this Saturday or Sunday.
Due to the high response (and understandable complaints) of the "Birdman Drop in Ratings" that surfaced, I believe the most fair way to handle this is to allow a one week period (until next Sunday) where anyone can switch to unrated status in any game WITHOUT PENALTY . If enough people agree with this (please respond here), then I will post a new thread stating this "reprieve".
Quinns
P.S. I just noticed that BILHQ has not been rated, yet was considered rated in CONQUER!!! Someone please contact BILHQ to get his initial rating. In the meantime, he has been changed to "unrated" in CONQUER.
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 05, 2001).]
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks