> >It will be more like. Hey Joe and John, let's join the next 1650 game as
> >Dunland, Harad and Corsairs, then go FP on GT1. We'll be sure to get a
> >quick victory and boost our rankings.
>
>*** That's not allowed. You brought that up before, I commented that this
>was not allowed then.
But, it does happen. How could you know that such an agreement was or was
not made?
*** It's not relevant. If you want to cheat there are many ways to cheat without me ever knowing. I assume that the win to win in most players is not that high. We've only banned one player for cheating. In other cases where players used pseudonyms etc we had a strong suspicion. The rules have been put forward and the players want to break the rules then that's their call. If we find out we'll act. For example I am reasonably sure that there are a lot less players running under a pseudonym now. I can name some players that I think were such people, and I have discussed it directly with some of the others. After a bit they dropped their extra nation. If all players can agree not to cheat then we'll have a happy little community of players. For the odd player that must win at all costs I am sure they will get bored of playing soon due to lack of challenge.
When I inform players that they are not allowed to join as a Neutral with another Neutral or Aligned nation they are usually happy to join allied as an Aligned nation. The argument is pretty simple and I am content that they are okay to go with my ruling there. For those that don't - shame on them. 
Your proposed ranking system will reward this type of neutral
stacking, so can only be expected to cause it to happen more often.
*** Any 5-0 split (or 4-1) will quickly slant the game. Nothing to do with the PRS.
Or, will you be spending all that automagic time savings doing alanysis of
the top ranked players to determining how many times they joined as
nuetrals, who they joined with, when they began helping one side or the
other, and game to game analysis to determine other player patterns. I
think not.
*** Neither do I but if players want to they can.
Even if a pattern emerged, how could you demonstrate it was
cheating, and not just a preference for certain players to take certain
nations and join certain allegiences.
*** I assume that the players are morally upright individuals that don't cheat until evidence suggests otherwise. It's virtually impossible for me to categorically state player Y is cheating because of this, but I can rule in a certain direction as I do have to from time to time.
Before you impose this sytem, take a few weeks to analyse all the ways
people could scam the system to increase their scores (other than just
spending a lot of money on a lot of games) and ask yourself if you really
want to create a list of these scam artests and present it as the "best
players".
*** No thanks. I don't fancy wasting my time that way. If you want to and get back to me with the answer that would be useful. But I warn you that I doubt it will change my mind at this present moment in time as I have a pretty clear indication of what player's desire. Unless there is something that I have seriously missed here. Any player that cheats will find a way to do so in some manner or another.
If you can honestly say that you want to present such a list of players as
"best players", then I'll shut up and go away.
*** I sense a potential verbal trap. If I did I might be accused of lying that I honestly thought so. As I have been accused of before. Generally Sam tells me off for being too honest... Note I would not use the term "honestly" as this would imply a level of double-standards. Ie if I say, "I think your hair looks pretty tonight", and then you ask: "honestly?" then... well you get the picture.
I think you are correct that I would not want to present them as best players - actually I'd just chat to them and take action after I have enough information. Normally I find that players are reasonable and understand and don't offend again or attempt to put things to right. Those that don't agree don't generally play with us for any length of time or accept that we make rulings and are the final arbiter. (I make the odd error but heh I'm human).
Clint
