Ctp Pbem Rankings 12th April 2002

[blackice]

One way to have things happen is to impliment a "moderator" rule. All games must have a moderator and all players here have to moderate a game. That way any rules are easier to enforce. The moderator could use a simple code system when posting the rankings to inform the rankings co-ordinator of what is what and who is who.

Most all games that die have no moderator. Keygen runs around revamping these games. This is a big job that if a moderator was involved would be easy.

The moderator would be responsible for keeping track of what is what and who is who. A moderator could assign the tasks to players in the game that way everyone has something to do and more importance to the effect of the overall game.

In the end I think this would make any rule implimentation far easier to do. I also believe we have overlooked the importance of moderator far too long.

[blackice]

Come people quinn keygen all you old f*rts out there contribute newbies get on this one. Solver is right some of this sytem needs to be revamped ideas are the key....

[Solver]

You see, while I agree that most games should have a moderator, it's tough to inforce. All in all, while I'm in complete charge of the ratings, I can't *force* people to use moderators - I can just try to authority .

Also, it might be better to have the moderators, not the players report the scores. This is because the moderator stays the same during the game. And it's the moderator whom I'd like to inform here of delays caused by players, so that penalties are given. We had the rule in 2000, but it was practically never used, as we just didn't get to know if someone delays a game.

What if this even speeds the games up, overall.

[MILAMBER]

hey i'd love to help out but o'm an idiot with computers i am just a point and click user. also i work 12-16 hours a day most days and now that i have 10?games going i find i am online a lot longer keeping up on threads and turns would love to help moderate but dont have the time all the time

off to the severs now Ice

[blackice]

What about a head moderator that could handle moderator request's? That way moderators simply have to keep games going? Head moderator has a thread for posting only players needed info any other posts are removed. The recruitment center gets muddled with crap far too often.

Also I think it was keygen who said we should have and agreement you must agree to to play here. Why not include moderating. Unless someone has a good excuse we all moderate.

[Solver]

I've not moderated a single game .

Need Keygen to post here, but his drive reformat seems to have gone long.

Maybe I'll also start enforcing stricter forum moderation politics, eh?

[TheBirdMan]

Mumbling...... a history thread for each game I moderate?

[Solver]

Huh, feel free .

[TheBirdMan]

Could you restrict the writeaccess to such a thread to the moderator (and admins of course) only?

[Solver]

Yes, I can. However, I can't restrict it to author, mods and admins. If I do this, the author (unless any of mods) won't be able to edit posts, either.

[Keygen]

Before I start counting my suggestions how we could make the ratings better I would suggest to start a new thread exclusively for rule discussion just like the old times when the ladder was intruduced for the first time.
The initial Quinns/Solver rules and the later Gavrushka/Blackice rules should be posted there before any suggestions are thrown in the table because they are currently hunging somewhere and will be difficult for the rest to find them and use them as reference.

I must also point out that I've greatly missed the amount of detailed information Quinns used to post on the first post of every new ratings thread he started and the fact that from the current listed rated players at list the 20 of them are no longer members of this community, some of them have left about a year ago or so and Don has double entry, one as Don and one as Max Webster.

I was the one that suggested to Solver to start over the ratings.
First it would refresh the interest to all, even the ones in the first ten.
Perhaps not for the first three but either way they can lead again if they deserve it.
Second in many rated games the results hadn't been posted for months, certainly not in the games I play and I wasn't the only rated player there. I am sure that the same must have happened to other games as well.
Third having changed the way the players are rated and perhaps change them again either back to the original or to something new - who knows - has gained or taken off points from several players that might have created imbalances.

In addition the current first 10 players could gain their place in the pantheon (perhaps in a new thread or web page) of the top ranked players of the old ladder.

Now, go and post a new thread and I shall follow with my suggestions that might not be great after all, just a bunch of bull

[blackice]

To clear up one point the rankings were calculated from the point they stood. Any active players who were ranked... Were subject to the same change no omissions.
Therefore no errors that can be counted for. The lost members will slowly fade. This alone will be incentive so will the fact the rankings are moving again.

I must also point out that I've greatly missed the amount of detailed information Quinns used to post on the first post of every new ratings thread he started

Yes that was great but it did not change the rankings...

[Keygen]

Originally posted by blackice

To clear up one point the rankings were calculated from the point they stood.

Do you mean that you erased their previous ranking and started over again?

Originally posted by blackice

Yes that was great but it did not change the rankings...

Well, I hope I didn't sound like that but I pointed it out not as a suggestion that would affect the ratings rather than as a good reference

[Solver]

I missed the detailed information, too, must see if I can manage posting it .

I'm now waiting till I get along to post the rules as I see them... after which I want more votes on whether to restart, and go ahead .

[quinns]

Originally posted by blackice
To clear up one point the rankings were calculated from the point they stood. Any active players who were ranked... Were subject to the same change no omissions.
Therefore no errors that can be counted for. The lost members will slowly fade. This alone will be incentive so will the fact the rankings are moving again.

I must also point out that I've greatly missed the amount of detailed information Quinns used to post on the first post of every new ratings thread he started

Yes that was great but it did not change the rankings...

I must admit that the "Klair" factor really led to great skepticism of the old rating system. The way the ratings used to be calculated worked pretty good if a player was rated in two or more games. With Klair sitting at the top ALL the time by just playing ONE old game really made the system look bad. But it is what we agreed to in the beginning of the old system -- one game is all that you had to play. However, I really don't think the way the new PBEM/Internet ratings are calculated is very good either. The "wagering" system of calculating ratings was flawed when it was introduced in GameLeague, and it was flawed when it was introduced in the Apolyton ratings also (both in Internet and PBEM). Nothing personal Blackice, it is not your system I am criticizing, it is GameLeague's wagering system that I am referring to. Maybe a compromise would be in order.