I am forever at a loss as to why it's always "unfair" to
make a rule, draw a line, and stick by it.
It's not about being "unfair", it's about whether a rule
suggested to correct an abuse actually works, and whether its
introduction enhances or
reduces game play, and the creative options of players. You could
introduce a new rule into football, which says that the players
are not allowed to run. It would be much safer, and much
easier for
the referee to see what was going on, therefore much fairer.
But that doesn't
mean that the introduction of that rule would make it a
better game. Much
the same I'm afraid with your penalty for late declaring neutrals.
I can always rely on Laurence to make the point in a far
better manner than I. As usual, you got it in a nutshell.
I've been thinking further on this over the last couple of hours.
It seems to boil down to, yet again, a clash of cultures:
the European "it's just a game, let's have fun" versus the
American "the only thing that counts is winning and being able
to show it". Earlier, it was victory certificates that powered
the debate. Now, it's player ratings. (I'd put money on most of
the pro-rating camp being American.)
This is liable to lead to one of two conclusions: players
deciding that it isn't worth the hassle and therefore not
playing, or a polarisation between games involving "rated"
players and non-rated games. The first leads to a lower player
base. The second leads to longer times for games to fill up
(and maybe defections there, too, as people get bored waiting).
I've been thinking further on this over the last couple of hours. It seems to boil down to, yet again, a clash of cultures: the European "it's just a game, let's have fun" versus the American "the only thing that counts is winning and being able to show it". Earlier, it was victory certificates that powered the debate. Now, it's player ratings. (I'd put money on most of the pro-rating camp being American.)
Amusing, since it is your Welsh brethern who run this whole circus who are formulating the rating scheme itself. For that matter, I've yet to meet a player from either continent who wasn't trying to win and have fun at the same time.
Perhaps you should save your prejudices and stereotypes for a more appropriate time.
This is liable to lead to one of two conclusions: players
deciding that it isn't worth the hassle and therefore not
playing, or a polarisation between games involving "rated"
players and non-rated games. The first leads to a lower player
base. The second leads to longer times for games to fill up
(and maybe defections there, too, as people get bored waiting).
Is this really the aim of the proposed system?
*** You missed the 3rd option of opting out. We already have polarised games - Grudge and non-Grudge games. It's not destroyed the game - if anything enhanced it.
I'm afraid that I think you'd lose your money. Many of those who have spoken for the ratings have not been American. Some of those getting into a paddy about it are. I myself, liking to think of myself as the antithesis of apple pie, have been calling for one for more than a year now. Not that I think the proposed one is terribly wonderful, but it is better than no player rating system (apart from the Istari bit, as last proposed, which would be a move for the worse).
I didn't read your comments as prejudicial, just mistaken. Jason was right to point out "While I agree that we have different social systems, Europeans are just as passionate about their sports as Americans are." I'm not sure why he brings Europeans into the discussion - if he's lumping us in with our continental neighbours, he nicely demonstrates misunderstanding of cultural difference. But if he's talking about Englishmen, he's certainly correct in his overall point. And we can extend it further if we look at cricketing statistics, and reflect on the potential sublime beauty of a PRS listing. We were at it long before the Americans started coveting data for their funny rounders type game
I've been thinking further on this over the last couple of hours.
It seems to boil down to, yet again, a clash of cultures:
the European "it's just a game, let's have fun" versus the
American "the only thing that counts is winning and being able
to show it". Earlier, it was victory certificates that powered
the debate. Now, it's player ratings. (I'd put money on most of
the pro-rating camp being American.)
I didn't read your comments as prejudicial, just mistaken. Jason was right to point out "While I agree that we have different social systems, Europeans are just as passionate about their sports as Americans are." I'm not sure why he brings Europeans into the discussion - if he's lumping us in with our continental neighbours, he nicely demonstrates misunderstanding of cultural difference. But if he's talking about Englishmen, he's
I only said European because I thought that was the comparison Gavin was making. France certainly had a celebration when they won the Cup last time.
Regardless, Gavin and I chatted off list, and I read too much into what he wrote.
I do think the ratings system will be interesting, and if it causes problems, I hope the players can work together to improve it.
certainly correct in his overall point. And we can extend it further if we look at cricketing statistics, and reflect on the potential sublime beauty of a PRS listing. We were at it long before the Americans started coveting data for their funny rounders type game
I'm not going to even pretend to understand cricket.
I cannot but resist quoting for your benefit, the classic:
CRICKET: As explained to an American...
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the
side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man
goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in
and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out.
Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and
when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There
are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide
when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the
men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have
been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!
Anon.
>I'm not going to even pretend to understand cricket.
I cannot but resist quoting for your benefit, the classic:
CRICKET: As explained to an American...
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in
the
side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man
goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes
in
and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in,
out.
Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and
when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There
are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide
when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the
men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have
been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!
Anon.
You forgot to mention that if it rains while they are out they all go in.
