Ratings...who cares anymore?

mepbmlist
#1

It seems those that want ratings are at least putting forward half-decent
suggestions.

So, suggesting we go with nothing more complicated than
# Games Started; # Completed; # Won; Win %(won/started)
is considered less than half-decent? It provides all the information needed to determine the expereince level of the player for creating balanced games. It allows you sufficient information to determine if you want to play with someone. It even provides sufficient discouragement to drops.

Calling other people's ideas less then half-decent is just about as rude and annoying as asking them to just shut up. Which is how you end your comments.

Final note. Leave this to those that want ratings. For those of us that
don't really care, perhaps we should just concentrate on other debates.

Alan J.

I find your email truely offensive. It provides nothing of value to the debate and could have been intended to do nothing but silence and/or anger those that think the whole idea of rankings should be scrapped.

My opinion is as valid as any other, and I think there should be NO ranking system at all. I'd really appreciate it if people would quit trying to silence me. I'll let you talk, but you have to let me talk as well. Let's keep it on topic. Let's stick to posts about why rankings will be good or bad for ME.

I think it will alter the way a few people play, becuase they will seek ways to maximize their points. I believe that a few (1-3 per game) can mess it up for the near 2 dozen others that end up in a game with them. I believe that rankings of any kind will have a negative aspect of the funness of playing ME. If we are having a ranking system imposed on us against our desires, then the most simple is the best.

The last thing I want is a list of "cunning" players or players that spend the most money being shoved in my face once a month as "the best" players.

Darrell Shimel

···

_________________________________________________________________
Surf the Web without missing calls!�Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp

#2

>Final note. Leave this to those that want ratings. For those of us that
>don't really care, perhaps we should just concentrate on other debates.
>Alan J.

I find your email truely offensive. It provides nothing of value to the
debate and could have been intended to do nothing but silence and/or anger
those that think the whole idea of rankings should be scrapped.

Worse than that I'm afraid. It was intended to silence all of us. I can tolerate almost anyone with almost any opinion, if they care to give reasons, for any subject under discussion. But what I find low, is the pomposity of those who think they can break in, and tell others what they may, and may not discuss. It is selfish of those who are bored by the concerns and interests of another group, to try to impose their own imperious veto on the discussion.

But the very worst of it, is that those who lurk, and do not always feel confident or articulate enough to forward an opinion, are dissuaded by posts such as that, from ever doing so. I'd encourage anyone who has an opinion on the PRS to post freely, and continue to do so.

Laurence G. Tilley

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

···

At 00:00 22/10/2002, corsairs game 101 wrote:

#3

--- corsairs game 101 <corsairs101@hotmail.com> wrote:

The last thing I want is a list of "cunning" players or players that
spend
the most money being shoved in my face once a month as "the best"
players.

Darrell Shimel

I've always agreed with your motivations as such. I just
disagree with your expected numbers. With 700 or so players
in Harley's files, you're going to get all types. Right now,
even without getting anything for it, we still run across
multiple players chasing VP's. Even newbies seem to find
it suitable to yammer on about "winning", etc. It stuns me.

Take a bell curve, and all those "cunning" players you mention
are already here. They're already being "cunning" as you
put it. But right now,they're chasing selfish, anti-team
VP's. I've played in a few games where VP players have sat
around complaining that the rest of us haven't ended it yet,
then when their scores drop off (oddly, they try to increase
their scores selfishly and us who are fighting away bump
them down...lesson? naw, it'll be lost on them...) they
DROP! BEST thing that can happen - get those nations
picked up and win the game! Been there, done that, likely
have to do it again soon.. :frowning:

Take the same bell curve, and all those "cunning" players
you mention are still there. They're now being "cunning" as
you put it. But NOW, they're chasing the TEAM win instead
of the individual.

Same argument for "late declaring" neutrals. They jump
already for the VP win. They'll jump later for the PRS
increase. Same players, same behavior, nothing AT ALL
changing for them, but, as far as I can see, nothing
will really change.

That's why some of us are more prone to "forceful" replies
to your posts than maybe others - we believe we're agreeing
and don't understand why you can't see that (mind you, I
don't think you've ever addressed that particular aspect
of the debate, if you have, I apologize.).

And I think we ALL like Win%. Some of us just want more
"neato" numbers to play with... :wink:

Brad

···

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

#4

Brad Brunet wrote:

And I think we ALL like Win%. Some of us just want more
"neato" numbers to play with... :wink:

Personally, I think straight win% is completely bogus, since it doesn't take into account the quality of the team you play with or beat. That's especially true with the low number of games "Darrell" is talking about.

Clint's rating gives a much better picture.

      jason

···

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