Player Rating System

mepbmlist
#1

Here I have obviously been misunderstood.

Nobody is negotiating for votes. I merely commented that a player
rating system like this MAY increase INTRA team communication. Did
you see that part? More talking. Better. Know what's going on,
coordinate, etcetera. That's all. No political campaigning.

But, we are political animals in a political world. Just as some
people don't read the entire paragraph, others will 'politik', and
then, I'm sure there are some others, who'll think that Southern
Gondor sending his troops in support of Northern Gondor is merely
pandering for votes....

Meanwhile, exactly what raw data would you prefer, over the Average
number of votes that you don't like? How meaningful is 2,546 votes
for Twitch if Twitch has played in 2,765 games? I'm not sure about
you, but while I boast the skills, I know that most people can't
divide 2/2, so frankly, let's do it for them... The Average is,
actually, the entire point. Meaning. The rest is numbers. I'll
send you an email full of numbers if you like...divide them all up
at your leisure...

Regards,

Brad Brunet

···

On Wed, 11 July 2001, "Laurence G. Tilley" wrote:

Brad's notion of negotiating for votes, is directly contrary to
what I would prefer as a constructive system

__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com

#2

Meanwhile, exactly what raw data would you prefer, over the Average
number of votes that you don't like?

Number of games and number of votes. Calculating the average
clutters the table.

How meaningful is 2,546 votes
for Twitch if Twitch has played in 2,765 games? I'm not sure about
you, but while I boast the skills, I know that most people can't
divide 2/2, so frankly, let's do it for them...

Patronising.

The Average is,
actually, the entire point. Meaning. The rest is numbers.

No, the numbers can be interpreted in different ways, and will be
interpreted by different people according to their opinions and priorities.
YOU might give supreme weighting to a simple average. Marc might
disregard the votes column entirely, and look instead at, say a VP or
alternative "objective" column. I'd be looking at number of games and
number of team wins, I might look at votes as a secondary factor.

So if Twitch has played in 20 games (own reckoning) 3 games since
rating system started, 2 team wins, 8 votes, 1000VPs, I make one sort
of judgement about him - he knows how to win, he knows how to
contribute to a team. If he's played 40 games, 6 games since rating
system started, 3 team wins, 8 votes, 3000VPs, then I make a different
sort of judgement. But it's MY judgement, based on all five figures
compared against those of others, and MY opinions as to which ones
are important. That's quite different to having someone else decide for
me which 2 columns are important, and process that information for me.

When we get a table of raw data, you can, if you like, write a nice
article for the Bree thing, telling people how to divide, and which
columns are important for assessing player performance. But it will be
your opinion, and your job to persuade people that your system of
analysis is best. Let's have it there, rather than imposed on people in
the table.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

BBrunet <ditletang@canada.com> wrote

#3

Ok, so what's wrong with one little extra number showing an average? You can
certainly disregard it if it offends you, and it should't hurt, so why not make it
available to those who want it? I don't see more information as an imposition, but as
a benefit. If someone doesn't care about a number, (whether it's an average or total
VPs or total victories, etc.), then they can simply disregard it. So why not give
people more numbers to choose from? As long as what each represents is explained on
the web page, people who visit the site can determine for themselves what's important
and what's not, rather than someone else deciding what's best for everyone. More
numbers... more choice. I don't see the problem.

Mike

···

------Original Message-----
-From: Laurence G. Tilley [mailto:laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk]
-Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 5:22 PM
-Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Player Rating System
-
-When we get a table of raw data, you can, if you like, write a nice
-article for the Bree thing, telling people how to divide, and which
-columns are important for assessing player performance. But it will be
-your opinion, and your job to persuade people that your system of
-analysis is best. Let's have it there, rather than imposed on people in
-the table.
-
-Regards,
-
-Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

#4

      Ok, so what's wrong with one little extra number showing an average?
You can
certainly disregard it if it offends you, and it should't hurt, so why not make it
available to those who want it? I don't see more information as an imposition,
but as
a benefit. If someone doesn't care about a number, (whether it's an average or
total
VPs or total victories, etc.), then they can simply disregard it. So why not give
people more numbers to choose from?

I've responded to that at length elsewhere.

As long as what each represents is
explained on
the web page, people who visit the site can determine for themselves what's
important
and what's not, rather than someone else deciding what's best for everyone.

But that's precisely what we'd be doing by having an average column -
the compiler has made the decision that columns c and d are of
particular importance, and has processed them to make column e. That
imposes one particular interpretation of the figures, on the reader.

More
numbers... more choice. I don't see the problem.

See other e-mail. It's about the difference between primary data and
secondary derived data, which, because it is selective, gives out
messages.

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

···

Aaruman <aaruman@orions.net> wrote