Or we could agree how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The whole core of the issue is the fact that as in any game or sport, people's opinion as to what constitutes good play, will vary, sometimes wildly. That's why any attempt to objectively allocate any form of points or score will always appear destructive to some - it will reward what they would not. It's also why a voting system is attractive - it takes into account the spectra of "good play" opinions of all the players involved.
In a voting system, though it's subjective and thus more open to abuse, _everyone_ gets to reward according to their own values. The chap who thinks that assassinating his allies is a spiffing tactic, will no doubt be unhappy at the vote. But he will have to live with the consequences of the fact that his idea of good play is not that of the majority. He could change his views, attempt to change the views of others, or hold a dignified minority stance. But he's not locked into a rigid scoring system or fixed official definition of good play, which is likely to take away his right to have fun.
Laurence G. Tilley
http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
ยทยทยท
At 10:02 10/10/2002, kba@wecodsb.dk wrote:
I think the key issue in creating a Rating system based on good play is
first making a uniqe definition of "Good play", which can be agreed upon.