Ratings points

Post by **gm_al** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:34 pm

First off, I am only stepping down if it means somebody who I feel is qualified would take the position. Out of the entire WSC, there's only about 2-3 people who I don't feel would do a good job, and Al is one of them.

*LOL* Not biased at all, are we ? Im sure your feelings on who "is qualified" will guide us. You sound more like a poitician every day.... your attitude as WSC chairman is really a disgrace. It disgusts me and can only be bad for the WSC and the community.

The last two votes he proposed are simply wastes of mailing list space, as there are no arguments about either of them. Nobody is going to use a shared RIP bonus; and nobody is going to object to GMs having to declare if their games are rated. One email asking for any objections to either of those things would have been more than sufficient.

Have you been living in a cave for the last week ? Split personalities ? If I feel a vote is important I file it - any WSC member is free to do that. Because of your "maybe - maybe not - only if I like the results" attitude you are forcing us into calling for votes. Votes that you dont respect btw.

Finally, if anybody else wants to keep track of ratings for my games, they are more than welcome to. I don't want to stop anybody if they feel it is important, I simply refuse to support a system I see as fatally flawed myself.

So you are saying you declare your game as not going to be rated - but someone else should maybe rate it ? It certainly is good for the Players, there is no way now that they can plan if they should go for that RIP or not.

A shame you said you would stop posting on the topic - oh wait, I forgot, another promise you didnt hold on to.

Post by **Dameon** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:32 pm

By topic I meant the entire shared RIP idea Al- and I am done trying to champion that, in case you hadn't noticed. And as for ratings, I am not trying to stand in Saladin's way if he feels that my games not being rated will upset the standings. Al, if you wish to disallow anybody but the GM from rating a game, then obviously my games will not be rated. But, if you allow somebody else who cares to keep track of the ratings, then I have no objection of them doing so. I simply refuse to contribute to the rating system myself.

And Al, I have respected every single WSC vote so far. If you can give me an example of one I have not, I will step down right now and you can have the chair. Before you start on the rating system vote though- it does clearly say on the official rating page that GMs rating games will be optional, and the vote we called was to implement the rules on that rating page. It's funny how I've brought that up several times and you've simply ignored the fact that you are wrong- I'm not surprised though, you wear the biggest blinders out of everybody I know. You don't like the "optional" rule on the ratings page, so you are ignoring it. Really Al, you should try to follow WSC decisions more closely.

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:29 am

NICK wrote: Second, why the heck would I step down from the GMC? I have no intention of doing so, not do I see any reason to. And even if I do step down as WSC chair, I will remain on the WSC, it was never an issue about whether or not I could vote or say my piece. As for when GMC elections are, Al, they are the same time as the WSC ones- July 1st. All five spots will be open then.

When are these votes then? Could it be possible to change the votes to a date so that the position was "innagurated" on Kaomaris Day (June 1st) sort of the "resetting of the Kaomaris calender." Personally I don't understand why our (kaomaris/scoring) years necessarially begin and end according to the Gregorian Calender, to me this is a seperate universe where we can get away from the "real world" and to me this would be much better, to reset the Champs/Vice Champs to June 1st it would also mean that people would try and get through the games a little faster as the holidays would be closer. But these are just my ramblings..... anyone like them?

NICK wrote:{...} you wear the biggest blinders out of everybody I know

Does this inclued any blind people you know? Such as me, because honestly, I have horrible vision problems that I'm sure would almost constitute me as blind, but I do get around in the dark rather well....

Wx

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:14 am

I keep waiting for the "will you stop touching me!!!" shout from either Al or Nick......

Post by **trewqh** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:02 am

Calidus wrote:I keep waiting for the "will you stop touching me!!!" shout from either Al or Nick......

As for me, just the contrary, I keep waiting for them to finally shut up. This 'discussion' about who and when was right or wrong should either be finished or moved to private e-mails between you two guys.

trewqh

Post by **Dameon** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:23 pm

You're on my side of the line! It's right here in the middle of the seat! Mooooom!!!

Post by **gm_al** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:03 pm

Latest results on votes (from WSC page):

Vote 20: Should players be allowed to share the ratings bonus for RIPping a player?

Results: 2 YES, 8 NO. The vote FAILS, a RIP ratings bonus may not be shared.

Vote 21: Should GMs have to announce whether their game is rated or not?

Results: 9 YES, 1 NO. The vote PASSES, GMs have to announce whether or not their games are rated when signing up players.

A few interesting tidbits to note:
- once again Nick has (by mistake of course, we are sure on that) not copied the correct phrasing of a Vote, in this case Vote #21. It originally was: "GMs must announce in advance if their game will be rated or not. The decision will apply to all participating Players." Notice the difference ? (That from a man that will cite rules by the letter....)
Of course we are demanding to correct this "mistake".
- Nick is also refusing to step down as WSC chairman, contrary to anything he has claimed. Which means we have done a lot of work and email exchange for NOTHING - and candidates to take over are simply left out. Very democratic !

Im too tired for this childish BS. Your actions speak for yourself, Nick. Im tempted to call for a vote to get you out of the WSC chair for good, but you are just too ridiculous. I got better things to do then complain with a stubborn child.

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:42 pm

IF everyone was truely THAT concerned with the job the Nick has been doing, then why don't you just impeach him......Oh, Wait, because then we would have to argue over the rules for an impeachment, what defines actions constituting an impeachment, etc, etc. I guess it would be faster to just let him stay chairman until July 1st.

Post by **Dameon** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:23 am

I am sorry if I got the exact wording wrong on that second vote; I didn't have a copy of the votes handy and so I paraphrased them. I thought I captured the spirit but I will correct the page if I made an error- something which could easily have been done if you emailed me Al instead of whining here on the boards.

As for the rest, I am doing a good job, so I don't see why I should have to step down. A vote to "get me off of the WSC" would border on ridiculous, as I have followed my duties to the letter and done nothing wrong- except, I suppose, oppose your wishes Al. A pretty serious crime, no doubt. I know you are upset I am not supporting your rating system, but I have performed the duties of my job as required and followed every single WSC vote, as have all members of the Kaomaris community.

Post by **trewqh** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 9:30 am

ROUND 2!

<DING!>

Post by **Hannibal** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:00 am

Hey, Trewqh, stop trying to stop them! Some of us only tune in to the boards to see the next instalment here (have you seen the viewing figures?). My scorecard has one of them ahead on points.

More seriously, I much prefer this, WSC etc., to be open to all to view and maybe comment, not behind closed doors so that we're in the dark.

Underdog · Post by **Underdog** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:36 am

Hanibal,

you REALLY don't want that. in the time I was on the WSC My mailbox filled with utterly useless mail from that list. Some of it was worth reading but it was about 10%. the rest was either bickering about wording or 2 people doing about what Al and Nick are doing here.(well maybe those are the same thing) I think I had to go through about once a day and delete messages so I could continue to play games. Then of course you would have times like lately where, as I understand it, Nothing happens so you quit looking often and then it all starts again and your Turn Reports get sent back because your inbox is full.

Post by **Donut** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:37 pm

I hate to start this up again but this one shouldn't be too bad.

Lets say 4 player get RIPed and 1 quits. Does the next player to get RIPed lose the .030 because he is one of the first 5 to get RIPed. I would say no because 5 have already "Died". Also, this would be the same question as whether or not the player who RIPed him gets the bonus.

Donut

Post by **korexus** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:04 pm

He counts as the 6th RIP. I think this is pretty clearly stated. Somewhere.

This is why we don't change ratings till the end of the game. Only then can we tell the exact order in which people went out...

Hope that's clear now.

korexus.

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:37 am

Clear as mud.

Post by **Dameon** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 3:10 pm

Just wanted to toss this little example of how totally random the RIP bonus is up here. If you don''t want to hear it, then don't read this. In Gaz 4, I basically just attacked Calidus and killed the vast majority of his armies. X-Wing did help some (although we were not working together), and basically between the two of us we wiped out pretty much every single army Calidus had.

Now, I have been working with UD, and because of the OOP, he was able to help me finish off Calidus by taking two empty provinces to complete the deed this round. Strategically it made the most sense for him to do it, as I wanted to hit a couple more targets down south. He killed a grand total of zero armies from Cal, as far as I am aware, and all he did was come take those two empty provinces. I own the other ten or so provinces that used to be part of Cal's empire, plus I killed well over 100 of his troops.

So, who gets the RIP bonus? Underdog, even though he didn't kill a single one of Calidus' armies. Yep, that makes sense all right. I'm not bashing UD- he offered to wait and let me finish Cal- but I am simply not willing to sacrifice good strategy for ratings points, nor should I have to be. This episode perfectly illuminates why the RIP bonus is not really an indicator of player strength, but more of an indicator of who got the good OOP. It definetely has hardened my resolve to never use the rating system as it currently exists, that much is for sure.

Undertaker · Post by **Undertaker** » Mon Apr 12, 2004 7:05 pm

In the words of Dave Chappelle..."WWWWHHHHAAAATTTT????

Post by **Dameon** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:53 am

Let me simplify it: according to the ratings rules, UD is now a better player because he took two empty provinces. Bravo!!

Underdog · Post by **Underdog** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:13 am

Snip, Snip

Dameon wrote: UD is a better player

Well after some judicial editing.

I am glad to see you have FINALLY admitted that I am a better player than you Nick.

Now if only you would admit that Ecrivian is also better than you, you could quit spending so much money on psychiatrists.

Post by **gm_al** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:32 am

Hmmmm..... I miss the usual "I will not play any more games until this gets done the way I want it" part in Nicks post. Too bad, seems he grows old.