In a message dated 9/2/01 4:37:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
devereux@lineone.net writes:
<< But as these changes are not likely to happen, let's focus on the VPs. Are
they fair? No - they favour the strong nations. But you knew that when you
started playing the game. Is there a better system of sharing the VPs?
Debatable.
If you're going to get rid of the VPs, what are you going to put in their
place? A voting system? If so what kind? All surviving players on the
winning team get one vote each for best player. If there's a tie, it's a
joint win. Why does it need to be more complicated than that?
>>
I think everybody -- well, most anyway -- agree that the current VPs are not
the same as a player rating system. Here's my proposition -- it may not be
sophisticated, but I think it would work as well as any other yet proposed.
1. All players first submit an estimate of where they stand in game-playing
skill compared with all other players expressed as a percentage. Turn in a
90 if you think you are as good or better than 90% of all players. Rookies
turn in a 1.
2. The numbers are only used to sort the players according to their own
estimates. 3. When a player ends up on the winning side, he exchanges
places with the player next above on the list. When a player ends up on the
losing side or is eliminated, he exchanges places with the player next below.
A neutral who survives but does not declare moves down on the principle that
he has not fulfilled his role in the game, which is to ally with one side or
the other.
This system does not require any calculations and has no numerical values for
everyone to disagree with. Those who survive and are on the winning side
move up, those who do not move down. It does not particularly favor the
initially stronger nations, except insofar as the weaker ones may be somewhat
more likely to be eliminated. No system is perfect; this one is no exception.
I will start off by giving myself a 17. I hope that isn't too inflated. 
Ed