"Chris Courtiour" <arnheim@globalnet.co.uk> said
"I don't need some stupid list for me to know I'm a better player than everyone else.
Oh! sorry it wasn't about ego?"
Maybe it's not actually about you. Maybe it's so that we can show the newbies and psychos just how excellent you (apparently) are, so that they can aspire to be like you.
There is certainly an agenda involved in the suggestions for a PRS. It is about encouraging;
- co-operative team play
- long term commitment to MEPBM
- recognition of the role of smaller nations
- more enjoyment
and discouraging
- VP players
- easy droppers
IF you think that the VPs are the best thing since sliced malt loaf, that your FP team can easily do without the Northmen, and that you don't actually like talking to them much anyway, then the PRS proposals are certainly not for you. Certainly there are some players who feel like this - witness the FP in game 63. That's why I've always argued that a PRS should be a VOLUNTARY OPT IN SYSTEM despite the fact that I support the basic idea very strongly.
A player agreed opt in PRS would have been the best answer. A Harlequin imposed easy system, would be better than nothing, and would please me personally, but I would not be so keen if detractors such as yourself did not have the chance to opt out.
LGT