Ctp Pbem Rankings 12th April 2002

[Solver]

Damn, while I type one post you already got 3 in place .

[blackice]

Originally posted by Solver
Pete, you should also see that we do somehow have many and many people who like the system as it is. And I believe that it is, add to it my rules, pretty fair. If you do not, it's the right thing to do - quitting. I understand your steam engine needs the smoke out.

I know people like the system right now this is why I do not understand the need to change it or restart it.
I think this is getting a bit silly my steam engine?
That is the way it is now if you do not like it quit? This used to be a place of debate I see that has come to a full stop?

Steve, I guess I will be getting enough offense now after taking over .

Again why do people feel the need to make it personal that is childish to me. This debate, all but over with that last comment is about a system not a person(s) I wish people would stop getting offensive on me because I question and try to improve things or just give ideas amazing...I question a system a get personal attacks who is offensive here hummm.

[Solver]

No way... I'm welcoming suggestions, and in this case, I just mentioned restarting it because that's what I was offered.

Also, I agree with you that no major changes should be done. I only plan on a few minor ones, affecting substitues, delayed players. However, if the decision passes, I'd love to add what BirdMan said - in a rated game, everyone gets rated.

Again why do people feel the need to make it personal that is childish to me. This debate, all but over with that last comment is about a system not a person(s) amazing...

Come on... you should see that your original post did sound like offense to Steve, this is why it all broke out.

[blackice]

I can not delete the post for some reason it will not let me?

I commented on a system not Steve it is an thing Steve is a person and I made no referance to him at all.

I am up to three finger typing now

Ok I still see no need to wipe out the hard work of some long time players i vote let their names stand as with the rankings.

I hope you see the merits in what I have said. Who is going to stick around to lose every game they have with bad land. I have yet to start a game with great land in what 28 games. Some people just want to play they do not want to be ranked why exclude them from joining here?

[Solver]

Some people just want to play they do not want to be ranked why exclude them from joining here?

That is the drawback, which I see, but otherwise I'd love the rule. Thanks for your vote on wiping the ratings, more votes is what I need .

Also, why can't you remove the quotes from your post? What does it say? I can do it for you if you wish...

[blackice]

Yes you will have too It says I am not logged on and or have the right too...

That is why we suggested the 9-19 turn rule not everyone whats to be ranked. But they do want to play and not everyone wants to play bad land knowing they are going to pay for it in the rankings. I know of no other game league that forces people to be ranked some just like to play and the more the marrier.

[Solver]

OK, but then please respond to this: what if player plays 10 turns, sees he got bad land, and doesn't get rated in a game, how are we going to get more than 2-3 rated players in a game?

Will edit post...

[blackice]

I still see no logical reason to restart the rankings nor has one been given?

I see no need to worry about this the game is rated with less people no biggy. I also see only one resolve to this make all games even land. We know that is tough and not very likely. So what is the big deal? The other way is to force people to take loses in games for the next what year? I see more people leaving that way than any other way I could come up with.

[Solver]

Not much... it was just a proposal.

[blackice]

Originally posted by Solver
Not much... it was just a proposal.

Ok put to a vote the top ten players are outvoted by the rest combined. If I was in last place I would vote yes.
With this logic all players under 10 should vote yes. it only makes sense.

[Solver]

I guess so .

[blackice]

One more point maybe what of the people who do have lives outside this game? They have a new assignment that now requires more of their time or a new baby. Do we penalize them because they now have to drop a game or two? Seems the best course would be to allow changes as long as the game does not suffer. It is not hard to set up a seemless transfer of a game. For those who do not do it penalize them...Seems like a fair rule to me anyway.

[Solver]

What's life outside games?

There's no penalty for abandoning game, there's one for delaying, and one for going unrated in a game where you're rated, and continuing to play there. Latter, of course, will be removed, if we force everyone to get rated in rated games, but you show nice reasons not to... as I say, I'd love it, but most probaby can't.

[blackice]

Ok then obviously one would not go unrated they would quit the game this is the problem today. The solution we should find is how to keep the games going. Penalizing for going in a ranted game to unrated just creates the problem of quiting the game all together something we should avoid at all cost's.

The 9-19th turn rule is good and encourages people to play the game rated or not. I mean what is the real hassle of going unrated? If two are rated the game continues to be if none it doesn't. If all players but the leader go unrated they should be awarded the win simple as that.

Or how about this if a player goes unrated all other players are awarded x points...

Or how about bonus points for staying in a game?

Looking for a postive rather than a negative here to encourage people to play rather than penalizing...

[Solver]

You really believe this could happen? Yes, we do need to secure ourselves against this, suggest. If we let player to select if he's rated after 10 turns, a few will be rated. If he must select it at turn 0, players will be taking losses due to bad starts. I feel confused a bit, but there got to be a nice way to do it .