new ratings

mepbmlist
#1

I can definitely see Richard's point on some of this. Most notably, the points. Remember Clint, the goal is to pick "a winner". The goal is to rank people, and in ranking, there are good and there are bad. If two teams play a great soccer game, then a winner is declared, the other team has still lost. It played a great game, but it still lost. And from my POV, the people who are worried about individual ratings, are generally more interested in winning rather than making sure that they got they 6 pts out of 100 from someone. 1st 2nd and 3rd is definitely not the most accurate ranking system, but you are already asking players to rank it. And if there is a goal to promote the best, then you should make people pick the best. My logical response would be, barring someone doing supremely well, to give everyone on my team 10 points. Team wins, or team loses, because to me, the best person is too often determined by circumstance.

Another thing I would like to add is, if you are going to give people points, do not restrict it to that person's team. Sure, a nation may only interact with a few enemies, but how is this for a counter argument...You want people to make decisions on their own team based upon what is going on within the team. Isnt it not foolish to expect that communication within the team will happen properly, and people not get wind of what is going on on the other side of the world? Many games I have been in (in fact the games I enjoyed the most) involved turn sharing. I may not be facing off against the WK directly, but if I find out from my allies that he has burned bree, put the Noldo out of the game, and is mounting an assault on the dwarves, to me, even if I do not face off against him, that is one hell of a game. As always, even this view has circumstances. But if you are going to have players hand off rewards, do not restrict who they can hand them out too. With the structure you have put in place, there is nothing restricting them from handing it off to the buddy they joined with, don't restrict them the possibility of handing it off to a well played enemy.

I have added my points. I do so for the sake of argument, kind of like expect Clint's response to Richard was. Please feel free to discuss them.

-Kenneth Weed

···

From: "Richard DEVEREUX" <rd@pagan-47.fsnet.co.uk>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] new ratings
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:37:57 -0000

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Middle Earth PBM Games
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:06 AM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] new ratings

  >Take the Council of the Wise:
  >Why oh why do you want a vote for best individual player? It's a TEAM
  >game. The ONLY thing that matters is the TEAM win not any individual's
  >ego trip.

  *** Because other players enjoy this aspect as well. Hence it is valued by
  some players. I am not just representing your viewpoint here I am
  representing others as well.

  >And why on earth 100 points divided between the best 5 players? In most
  >sports there are 3 awards: 1st gold, 2nd silver and 3rd bronze.

  *** Why not? 100 points allocated allows a variety of voting methods. Eg
  I think that the "best" player 1 played excellently and so I give him 50 of
  my points. In a different game a different "best" wasn't as good but still
  well worth a 40 points. Not only does it indicate who you think is the
  best, but by how much. Simple.

  >I still think it is just as important to cast a vote (or 3 if you must)
  >for the opposition. The point has been made, and perhaps overstated, that
  >a group of players can rig the votes for their own team. You can NOT rig
  >the votes for the opposition nations if you don't know who's playing
  >them! Therefore a vote for the opposition is impartial and should, if
  >anything, carry MORE weight than a vote for one of your own team.

  *** I don't think the voting for opposition is a particularly valid
  vote. Clearly the WK and Arth will know about each other but might not
  interact with any other nation in the game as far as the WK is concerned.

  Clint

  RD: Well pardon me for stating my point of view.
  As you've obviously made your mind up, why are you putting it up for discussion?

  Richard.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT

  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

_________________________________________________________________
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

#2

  Remember Clint, the goal is to pick "a winner". The goal is to
rank people, and in ranking, there are good and there are bad.<Snip> 1st 2nd and 3rd is definitely not the most accurate
ranking system, but you are already asking players to rank it. And if there
is a goal to promote the best, then you should make people pick the best.

** With 100 votes you can do exactly that. Maybe my example wasn't clear. Would you agree that best player in one game is not necessarily the same best level of excellence shown in for the best player in another game? Ie they can be rated slightly different. Still first or best player in that team (and similarly for 2nd and 3rd etc).

Eg

Best Individual Player (BIP): I have 100 votes and give 50 to player 4, 35 to player 3, 15 to player 10. (Similar to Richard's proposed 1st, 2nd and 3rd). I don't have to vote for all 5 suggested here - I could just vote for 1, 2, 5 or 0 - whatever takes my particular fancy as to what BIP is.
Best Team Player (BTP): With my 100 Votes I could give 30 to 3, 20 for 9, 8 and 7, 10 for 5.

This could then be read that I think that player 3, is a better team player than an individual player but still excellent at both. Whereas Player 4 has done well for himself but not a very good team player. I think this is superior, no offence intended Richard, to the other proposed system due to its flexibility.

My logical response would be, barring someone doing supremely well, to give
everyone on my team 10 points. Team wins, or team loses, because to me, the
best person is too often determined by circumstance.

*** I could open it to all the team votes here (and offer 150 points - although I am not sure that 150 is necessary). Anyone else think that 1, 3,5 or more is the most appropriate number of players to vote for?

Another thing I would like to add is, if you are going to give people
points, do not restrict it to that person's team.

** If I were to do that then I would suggest a 3rd rating - Best Enemy Player? Would that suit?

(OOPs sorry noticed I hadn't sent this earlier this afternoon).

Clint

#3

Can't remember if this was spelled out, but you can't give yourself
votes for this, right? I hope not. There are some players out there who
are awfully full of themselves! :wink:

Mike Mulka

#4

Up for discussion. I would suggest not.

Clint

···

At 03:40 01/11/02, you wrote:

Can't remember if this was spelled out, but you can't give yourself
votes for this, right? I hope not. There are some players out there who
are awfully full of themselves! :wink:

Mike Mulka

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

****************************************************************
                    Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************

#5

  Remember Clint, the goal is to pick "a winner". The goal is to

  >rank people, and in ranking, there are good and there are bad.<Snip> 1st
  >2nd and 3rd is definitely not the most accurate
  >ranking system, but you are already asking players to rank it. And if there
  >is a goal to promote the best, then you should make people pick the best.

  ** With 100 votes you can do exactly that. Maybe my example wasn't
  clear. Would you agree that best player in one game is not necessarily the
  same best level of excellence shown in for the best player in another
  game? Ie they can be rated slightly different. Still first or best player
  in that team (and similarly for 2nd and 3rd etc).

  Eg

  Best Individual Player (BIP): I have 100 votes and give 50 to player 4, 35
  to player 3, 15 to player 10. (Similar to Richard's proposed 1st, 2nd and
  3rd). I don't have to vote for all 5 suggested here - I could just vote for
  1, 2, 5 or 0 - whatever takes my particular fancy as to what BIP is.
  Best Team Player (BTP): With my 100 Votes I could give 30 to 3, 20 for 9, 8
  and 7, 10 for 5.

  This could then be read that I think that player 3, is a better team player
  than an individual player but still excellent at both. Whereas Player 4
  has done well for himself but not a very good team player. I think this is
  superior, no offence intended Richard, to the other proposed system due to
  its flexibility.

  >My logical response would be, barring someone doing supremely well, to give
  >everyone on my team 10 points. Team wins, or team loses, because to me, the
  >best person is too often determined by circumstance.

  *** I could open it to all the team votes here (and offer 150 points -
  although I am not sure that 150 is necessary). Anyone else think that 1,
  3,5 or more is the most appropriate number of players to vote for?

  >Another thing I would like to add is, if you are going to give people
  >points, do not restrict it to that person's team.

  ** If I were to do that then I would suggest a 3rd rating - Best Enemy
  Player? Would that suit?

  (OOPs sorry noticed I hadn't sent this earlier this afternoon).

  Clint

  RD:
  1) last point first: a rating for Best Enemy Player would be great.
  2) The reason I don't like 100-150 votes to spread amongst the team is because, as Brad pointed out, it is possible for a player to spread those votes exactly evenly amongst his team-mates. How do you square this with "rating" players? They all come out with the same score! Don't say it won't happen, because if something can be done, sooner or later somebody will do it.

  3) You raised a very good point that the top player in one game is not necessarily as good as the top player in another. A player who finishes top (however you measure it) in a 10-turn wonder where half the enemy drop and the rest concede, should not be rated as highly as the player who finshes top after 200+ hard-fought turns against determined opposition.

  What to do here? Multiply the votes by 0.1 of the number of turns? Then if the top player of the 10-turn wonder gets say 100 votes from his team-mates, they equate to 100 on the global scale, whilst the top player after 200 turns, with the same score of 100, ends up with 2000. The first player meanwhile has the opportunity to accumulate more points by playing more games. Just a thought!

  Richard.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
  Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
  To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
  Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Middle Earth PBM Games
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:53 AM
  Subject: [mepbmlist] Council of the Wise

#6

  2) The reason I don't like 100-150 votes to spread amongst the team is because, as Brad pointed out, it is possible for a player to spread those votes exactly evenly amongst his team-mates. How do you square this with "rating" players? They all come out with the same score! Don't say it won't happen, because if something can be done, sooner or later somebody will do it.

*** Yes - but I think that's okay. Not sure what proportions of players would do this but I would estimate from the game 39 voting that this would be low.

  3) You raised a very good point that the top player in one game is not necessarily as good as the top player in another. A player who finishes top (however you measure it) in a 10-turn wonder where half the enemy drop and the rest concede, should not be rated as highly as the player who finshes top after 200+ hard-fought turns against determined opposition.
  What to do here? Multiply the votes by 0.1 of the number of turns? Then if the top player of the 10-turn wonder gets say 100 votes from his team-mates, they equate to 100 on the global scale, whilst the top player after 200 turns, with the same score of 100, ends up with 2000. The first player meanwhile has the opportunity to accumulate more points by playing more games. Just a thought!

*** Matter of opinion. I think a win is a win whatever timescale - some players share that opinion others don't. In this example though a problem I could see is the same turn number for similar turn numbers. Eg if a game ended on the same turn number then with Richards system (of 1st, 2nd etc) you would have the same VPs - ie same problem as I put forward about not recognising excellenece. Anyone else got ideas or feedback on this?

Clint

#7

Last Draft of Council rating - please get back to me if you feel it needs amending?

Council of the Wise

At the end of each game players will be given the opportunity to vote for their team-mates. Vote for players, that given their position's resources and characteristics made the best use of that nation and best contribution to the team.

You get to allocate 100 points for each category amongst the best players for each of the three following ratings (not allowed to vote for yourself):
Best Individual Player :
Best Team Player:
Best Enemy Nation:

eg
Game 123 ends, with a win for the Free People. Having played Northmen, my favourite nation, I now get a form from MEPBM asking me to vote.

Best Individual Player (BIP): I have 100 votes and give 50 to player 4, 35 to player 3, 15 to player 10. I don't have to vote for all the team - I could just vote for 1, 2, 5 8, 12 (including Neutrals that joined us) or 0 - whatever takes my particular fancy as to what BIP is.

Best Team Player (BTP): With my 100 Votes I could give 30 to 3, 20 for 9, 8 and 7, 10 for 5.

Best Enemy Player (BEP): Having interacted with the Long Rider, Cloud Lord, Easterlings (went DS on turn 10) primarily I decide to cast my votes as follows: 30 for 19, 20 for 25, 15 for Cloud Lord. Over the grapevine and from emails with allies I heared that the Witch King did a cool job in the North West so will give him 10, leaving 20 points to allocate, which I ask the GM to allocate evenly amongst the rest of their team (not sure how many were on their side at the end) except for Quiet Avenger who I heard did abysmally (nil point).

This could then be read that I think that player 3, is a better team player than an individual player but still excellent at both. Whereas Player 4 has done well for himself but not a very good team player. I think this proposed system allows a level of flexibility and potential for easy change.

I fill in that form and send it back within the 2 week allowed voting time with the following (without my dialogue):

BIP: n4-50, n3-35, n10-15
BTP: n3-30, n8-20, n9-20, n7-20, n10-5 leaving 5 points not allocated.
BEP: n19-30, n20-25, n14-15, n11-10 leaving 20 points to allocate to all other DS except 17.

Guidelines for voting: These are some of the ones that have been suggested as useful criteria for voting: Co-ordination, data gathering and mapping, suggestions, overall tactics, assistance to less experienced players, neutral wooing, error checking, morale management, skill at playing a nation, success with nation, small scale tactics. For Enemies impact they had on us, interesting dialogue, fun I had playing against a particular nation are some of the criteria you might want to

(Underlined are what I consider Individual playing skills, the others are more team orientated aspects of play.)

We'll then take an average rating for each player over the games they have played and use that as their three Council Ratings.

#8

Yes. Drop the idea completely or ask for each team member to vote for one
person.
Anything else is too unwieldly and unlikely to get co-operation.

Kev

···

At 17:29 07-11-02 +0000, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

   
Last Draft of Council rating - please get back to me if you feel it needs
amending?

#9

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

You get to allocate 100 points for each category amongst the best players
for each of the three following ratings (not allowed to vote for yourself):
Best Individual Player :
Best Team Player:
Best Enemy Nation:

One thing that concerns me is it seems that players who don't take a lot of time on this might skew the ratings.

Let's say I'm playing with Andrew, Kevin and Ben. They all play well, but Ben doesn't have quite as much time this game, so Andrew really takes the lead. Kevin goes a good job. So, I rate Andrew 40, Kevin 30 and Ben 25, with 5 points to someone.

Another player feels the same way I do, that Andrew played the best. He doesn't want to hassle with allocating his points, so he just says "Andrew played best," thus giving Andrew 100 points.

Combining the two scores, Andrew comes out looking way better than Ben or Kevin, but only because one player just tossed his points that way.

My only thought is to give less points to allocate, maybe 50 or 25. That way, giving all points to one player doesn't inflate his score as much.

      jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!

#10

I am letting you lot decide on how this is done since I cant be bothered to
work it all out. (Too busy with other things to get too involved) However
once you decide I will proudly display my last place (Trust me I will be
there) in all rankings.

Thomas Crane

#11

Yes. Drop the idea completely or ask for each team member to vote

for one

person.
Anything else is too unwieldly and unlikely to get co-operation.

Kev

I'm basically with Kev on this.

My position has always been that the whole rating system was pretty
useless to me but if others find it enjoyable let them go ahead. It
is highly unlikely that I will bother to vote at all. I *might* cast
one vote for a most valuable player on a team. I certainly would not
spend the time allocating 100 or even 25 points.

Now, since this is unimportant to me, I won't be offended if the
Lords of Harley just ignore me on this. Still, you might want to
consider that any rating system is going to have to deal with a
substantial number of people like me who have very low motivation to
participate. How will you handle ratings when only 2 teammates vote?
Or when none do?

Mark Jaede

#12

I agree with Jason - there should be less points to allocate (25
preferably), otherwise it's fine.

Cheers
Mikkel

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Jason Bennett <jasonab@a...> wrote:

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

>
> You get to allocate 100 points for each category amongst the best

players

> for each of the three following ratings (not allowed to vote for
> yourself):
> Best Individual Player :
> Best Team Player:
> Best Enemy Nation:

One thing that concerns me is it seems that players who don't take a

lot

of time on this might skew the ratings.

Let's say I'm playing with Andrew, Kevin and Ben. They all play well,
but Ben doesn't have quite as much time this game, so Andrew really
takes the lead. Kevin goes a good job. So, I rate Andrew 40, Kevin 30
and Ben 25, with 5 points to someone.

Another player feels the same way I do, that Andrew played the best. He
doesn't want to hassle with allocating his points, so he just says
"Andrew played best," thus giving Andrew 100 points.

Combining the two scores, Andrew comes out looking way better than Ben
or Kevin, but only because one player just tossed his points that way.

My only thought is to give less points to allocate, maybe 50 or 25.

That

way, giving all points to one player doesn't inflate his score as much.

  jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@a...
E pur si muove!

#13

I'll fight you for 1000 rating... 2 losses and a potential 3rd one on the way although I have been on the winning side once. Note this is a particularly British thing - being proud of being bad... :slight_smile:

Clint

···

However
once you decide I will proudly display my last place (Trust me I will be
there) in all rankings.

Thomas Crane

#14

Personally I am not a fan of this voting system - having been there and tried it. BUT I don't want to not try it. This system with some advertising (ie debate) can help. Once players get into the habit (usually takes about 2 years I find - cough), it will work fine.

Clint

···

At 22:06 07/11/02, you wrote:

> Yes. Drop the idea completely or ask for each team member to vote
for one
> person.
> Anything else is too unwieldly and unlikely to get co-operation.
>
> Kev

I'm basically with Kev on this.

My position has always been that the whole rating system was pretty
useless to me but if others find it enjoyable let them go ahead. It
is highly unlikely that I will bother to vote at all. I *might* cast
one vote for a most valuable player on a team. I certainly would not
spend the time allocating 100 or even 25 points.

Now, since this is unimportant to me, I won't be offended if the
Lords of Harley just ignore me on this. Still, you might want to
consider that any rating system is going to have to deal with a
substantial number of people like me who have very low motivation to
participate. How will you handle ratings when only 2 teammates vote?
Or when none do?

Mark Jaede

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

****************************************************************
                    Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************

#15

Okay carried.

Clint

···

I agree with Jason - there should be less points to allocate (25
preferably), otherwise it's fine.

Cheers
Mikkel

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Jason Bennett <jasonab@a...> wrote:
> Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:
>
> >
> > You get to allocate 100 points for each category amongst the best
players
> > for each of the three following ratings (not allowed to vote for
> > yourself):
> > Best Individual Player :
> > Best Team Player:
> > Best Enemy Nation:
>
> One thing that concerns me is it seems that players who don't take a
lot
> of time on this might skew the ratings.
>
> Let's say I'm playing with Andrew, Kevin and Ben. They all play well,
> but Ben doesn't have quite as much time this game, so Andrew really
> takes the lead. Kevin goes a good job. So, I rate Andrew 40, Kevin 30
> and Ben 25, with 5 points to someone.
>
> Another player feels the same way I do, that Andrew played the best. He
> doesn't want to hassle with allocating his points, so he just says
> "Andrew played best," thus giving Andrew 100 points.
>
> Combining the two scores, Andrew comes out looking way better than Ben
> or Kevin, but only because one player just tossed his points that way.
>
> My only thought is to give less points to allocate, maybe 50 or 25.
That
> way, giving all points to one player doesn't inflate his score as much.
>
        jason
>
> --
> Jason Bennett, jasonab@a...
> E pur si muove!

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

****************************************************************
                    Middle Earth Games
Mailto: me@middleearthgames.com
Website: www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP UK
US: PO Box 280, Medford, Oregon OR97501-0019 USA

Phone Times: 10am-6.30pm UK Time (BST);5am-1.30 (EST)
UK: 029 2091 3359 (029 2062 5665 can be used if main is engaged)
(Dial 011 44 2920 913359 if US)
UK Fax: 029 2062 5532 24 hours
US Phone and Fax: 541 772 7872 10-5pm PST Weekdays, Fax 24hrs
****************************************************************

#16

One thing that concerns me is it seems that players who don't take a lot
of time on this might skew the ratings.

Let's say I'm playing with Andrew, Kevin and Ben. They all play well,
but Ben doesn't have quite as much time this game, so Andrew really
takes the lead. Kevin goes a good job. So, I rate Andrew 40, Kevin 30
and Ben 25, with 5 points to someone.

Another player feels the same way I do, that Andrew played the best. He
doesn't want to hassle with allocating his points, so he just says
"Andrew played best," thus giving Andrew 100 points.

Combining the two scores, Andrew comes out looking way better than Ben
or Kevin, but only because one player just tossed his points that way.

My only thought is to give less points to allocate, maybe 50 or 25. That
way, giving all points to one player doesn't inflate his score as much.

Maximum number of points for a nation allowed? So that the maximum that a nation can have is fixed at half the points (if any player allocates more we just lose the rest - the mechanism isn't too important but the idea is). So Andrew for the other player would only get 50 at best? (If we went to 25 points then that would reduce the inflation even more which I quite like).

Clint

#17

Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

Maximum number of points for a nation allowed? So that the maximum that a nation can have is fixed at half the points (if any player
allocates more we just lose the rest - the mechanism isn't too
important but the idea is). So Andrew for the other player would
only get 50 at best? (If we went to 25 points then that would reduce
the inflation even more which I quite like).

Max per nation is probably good. 25 to allocate is also good.

      jason

#18

To make matters a little easier for AM users, I might be able to somehow
incorporate this into Automagic, or make a completely separate Excel
file for voting. What do you think?

Mike

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin [mailto:kevin@bobbins71.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:32 PM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Council of the Wise

At 17:29 07-11-02 +0000, Middle Earth PBM Games wrote:

   
Last Draft of Council rating - please get back to me if you

feel it needs

amending?

Yes. Drop the idea completely or ask for each team member to
vote for one
person.
Anything else is too unwieldly and unlikely to get co-operation.

Kev

#19

Rotten idea :wink: We, the underprivileged, forever (and forever) waiting for MEOWCH, get told that the reason it never comes out is because it is not as good as your prog. If you add more features for your grinning Excel compadres, we poor fellows will be forever behind. Couldn't you do something to make AutoMagic worse? :wink:

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 10:30 08/11/2002, Urzahil wrote:

To make matters a little easier for AM users, I might be able to somehow
incorporate this into Automagic, or make a completely separate Excel
file for voting. What do you think?

#20

Presuming the vote is simply an extra email after the game
ends, I don't believe automagic will make it easier - it'll
take longer to open the file than type it out...

Brad

···

--- Urzahil <Urzahil@orions.net> wrote:

To make matters a little easier for AM users, I might be able to
somehow
incorporate this into Automagic, or make a completely separate Excel
file for voting. What do you think?

Mike

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca