Ratings points

Lowebb · Post by **Lowebb** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 5:26 pm

Lovely switch roles there Dameon " I plan on continuing to GM well into the future, but only if I am allowed to by the WSC"

The WSC will never stop you GMing, I think we all could agree you are indeed a good GM, but it seems clear from YOUR attitude you won't continue to GM if the WSC rules against you

Post by **ThinKing** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:10 pm

Dameon wrote:I have said repeatedly that IF a player wishes to track their own rating changes in a game I am running, I will do nothing to stop them.

OK, so if I place in the top three in Nick's games, I will track my rating. Otherwise not.

Nick, if we keep the system as it is (with no shared RIP bonuses), then the amount of work for the GM really is minimal. Any GM that would threaten to stop running games because of it needs to look at their own actions closely. It is you, not Al, whose attitude is "my way or the highway".

If you are right, and the rating system is a bit random, then we will see in a few months' time. Keep track of it, and then come out with a huge "I told you so" when it turns out that the RIP bonuses are messing things up. By tracking more games, you are at least giving us the OPTION to change the rating system in a more informed way.

However, if, as I suspect, you only dislike the RIP bonus because it would harm your own rating, then please just say so and save us all the hassle.

Post by **gm_al** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 8:43 pm

Nice discussion. Brings out the beast in some of you....

First the good news: I think we all can agree that any Player quitting or going M-3 should have the FIRST missed Turn to be seen as the one where he did quit, thus placing him eventually in a worse final position for the rating. Good, less people going M-3. Mission achieved. Update please Bjorn.

I also feel that there is no feasible way to allow shared RIP bonuses between Players without controversial results. If you want Nick you can file a vote to the WSC but I frankly doubt you'll get approval for this - its just not doable, so lets stick to the easy-peasy RIP bonus awarded to the guy that lands the final blow.

Now when it comes to GMs not rating games.... or maybe I should say to ONCE AGAIN the ONE GM that doesnt play game.... that neglects a WSC vote.... you know the guy. Im leaving the lenghty arguments to him, Ill just add that rating has to be a GM duty. Just declare if your game shall be rated or not in advance - but then it should be clear that unrated games have to stay unrated for EVERYONE involved in that game to keep it fair. Otherwise you get what "Gone King" has said: only those will wish to get ratings recognised that make steps forward. More discussions and more blablabla would result.

If you need a WSC resolution for this Ill gladly file it: "GMs must announce in advance if their game will be rated or not. The decision will apply to all participating Players." - do we really need a vote on this ??

My way or the highway ! Hahahahahaha !

Post by **Dameon** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 9:10 pm

Yep TK has a good point there, all right. In any case, I was never refusing to use the rating because it was a lot of work, which it clearly isn't, but because I don't like the RIP bonuses idea which are often completely non-reflective of reality. I would not mind keeping track of ratings in terms of who gets RIPped and when, and what place people finished in, but I have a feeling that Al and co. wouldn't want that info if I wasn't including RIP bonuses as well, which I don't intend to.

I like the M-3 change, btw. I also think that it is sad that all of you think that a shared RIP bonus would cause chaos and arguments- my suggestion is why not try it? If it really does cause bad feelings than we can easily drop it, but why not give it a chance? I think some folks might be surprised how well it could work. I guess we'll have to bring this to a WSC vote it looks like- I will formulate the wording and send it when I have some more time later tonight.

Post by **ThinKing** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:23 pm

Dameon wrote:I also think that it is sad that all of you think that a shared RIP bonus would cause chaos and arguments- my suggestion is why not try it? If it really does cause bad feelings than we can easily drop it, but why not give it a chance? I think some folks might be surprised how well it could work.

Nick,

This is what almost EVERYONE else is trying to say to you, about the normal non-shared RIP bonus!

Post by **Dameon** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:36 am

As I said I am not against the idea of a RIP bonus, I just want it to reflect the diplomatic reality of a game instead of only going to the player who was lucky in OOP the crucial turn. And incidentally Al, Bjorn's rating page specifically says:

Effective 1 January 2004 GMs who wish to have a game they are running rated will be asked to record the following information on the group pages for their game for each player in the group.

I would say that's pretty clear cut that a GM having a game rated is an optional thing and not mandatory, wouldn't you?

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 4:25 am

Saladin,

That is the best argument that you can bring to the table? "You're being childish?" If you had a valid argument, I still wouldn't care what you have to say on the matter. The bottom line is, I think YOUR idea of not allowing VPs for non-rated games, is stupid. Yep STOOOPIIDD. If any game that I run (which will be 100% non-rated) counts for nothing, then I will give nothing back to the community as a GM. Period. There is nothing childish about not wanting to waste my time. It is not an ultimatum. It is merely a simple FACT. If the WSC votes to not award VPs for a non-rated game, then I will not ever return as a GM. To do so would be assinine.

It isn't a matter of getting mad, taking my ball and going home. How many waitlists are open at the moment? ZERO, and you want to mandate to a GM that he must use the system or no VPS will be awarded? Yeah, that's going to cause a flood of new games to open up.

Am I the only one that remembers that we USED to keep track of how many turns a player played? Which seems to me the forefather to Bjorn's system. It went away because noone cared anymore. Coincidence?

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:06 am

Dameon wrote:As I said I am not against the idea of a RIP bonus, I just want it to reflect the diplomatic reality of a game instead of only going to the player who was lucky in OOP the crucial turn. And incidentally Al, Bjorn's rating page specifically says:

Effective 1 January 2004 GMs who wish to have a game they are running rated will be asked to record the following information on the group pages for their game for each player in the group.

I would say that's pretty clear cut that a GM having a game rated is an optional thing and not mandatory, wouldn't you?

Nick,
For starters.... PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ARSE, and read the rest of this carefully, in fact, read it twice!

From what I read no one is trying to stop you from not using the ratings system. What they ARE trying to do is to get you to see the folly of the supposed "shared rip bonus." And yes I do say folly because when looking at a game of WOK 5, and i know this doesn't apply in WOK 4, the player who makes the rip gets the bonus of all the gold, corn, wood, diamonds, etc, etc. from the ripped player. There fore simply put ONE person gets the bonus materials right? Why wouldn't it logically go that that same person who gets the bonus materials get all the bonus points? There is no option to share the materials and therefore there should be no option to share the points! Also Nick if you'd read Al's post instead of just skipping it you'd notice that he's not imposing his will on any GM here, he's making suggestions, leaving them open for discussion, and replying with further suggestions to the discussion! He's not trying to get you to conform to the ratings system, he's saying that if you don't want to use it, fine, then don't use it, but declare your game VOID of ratings points so that NO ONE may take advantage of your not wanting to use the ratings system!

Caldius,
Please don't deprive the community of your superb GMing! The community needs quality GMs and not quantity GMs. (I know I of all people shouldn't be saying anything) But its the truth, Calidus, Larry, please I eagerly await your next game.

Ecrivian.... OUT

Post by **Dameon** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:38 am

Heh, go Calidus. You said all the things I more or less wanted to and weren't even diplomatic about it.

Anyway Ec- as I have explained (slowly, and using big words just for you) in-game RIP bonuses CAN be shared. I did it with UD in Gaz's game. He got the RIP on Taker, but I made a condition of my helping that he sell me half the corn the next turn. And you know what, he did. Most people are decent enough to keep their word in this game. And in any case, even if you couldn't share the RIP rewards in-game, you sure as heck could make the rating system more fair and share the RIP bonus. That was the WHOLE POINT to the system- otherwise we'd still just use VPs, which are all-or-nothing. The rating system is NOT supposed to be all-or-nothing, otherwise, what's the point of it vs VPs?

And Al suggested that if we didn't use the rating system, our games would not count. That, to me, sounds pretty authoritarian. Fortunately he has backed down after Cal and Bryk had their say in addition to me, but the very fact that he had the idea of reducing the amount of GMs for a silly reason such as this one is disturbing. Anyway, the shared RIP bonus is in the hands of the WSC now, we'll see what they do with it.

Lowebb · Post by **Lowebb** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:38 am

SO is it fair to say Dameon that if the WSC rules against your idea you will toe the line and use the cuurent rating system?

Assuming you wont, there is little point in having a vote, back to the old "my way or the highway".

Anyway I would suggest, no matter what the WSC rule, all GM's (and again I cant say much cause I aint GMing) use the rating system as decided by the WSC and come back to the issue, in 6 months - 1 year

Post by **gm_al** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:08 am

And you know what, he did. Most people are decent enough to keep their word in this game.

"Most people" is not enough Nick. "Some" will get greedy and help push their clan fellows ratings instead of trying to be "fair". Thats why a shared RIP bonus simply cannot work.

The rating system is NOT supposed to be all-or-nothing, otherwise, what's the point of it vs VPs?

You still seem not to get it. The rating system primarly functions to make Players go less M-3, make games faster and more aggressive. All these things are not achieved through simple VPs. In fact it should wake up a few "sleepers" and make them want to go for a quick kill instead.

Now I would hope that the GMs will all be team players and give the rating system a try, at least for a few months. I cannot (and will not) impose it on them, but frankly I cant see your point in not even TRYING it. And I hope that after the WSC's decision on shared RIP bonus the GMs that dont want to use ratings give it a second thought.

All Im asking from the GMs is to claim in advance if their game will be rated or not. Maybe they will realise that the majority of Players wants to be part of rated games and see the good improvements it will bring to games.

So Im still asking: do we need a vote on this or can we agree ??
"GMs must announce in advance if their game will be rated or not. The decision will apply to all participating Players."

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:29 am

Dameon wrote:Saladin just because we don't agree with the rating system doesn't mean we are childish, it simply means we do not want to deal with it since we view it as completely extraneous. Now, because the community seems to want this overall, I am TRYING to come up with a compromise that I could live with as a GM and make me feel that the rating system is worth implementing in my games. I frankly fail to see how the sharing of RIP bonuses would bring up any more arguments than normal NAPs do, really. The sharing should be 100% up to the person who did the RIPping, and it should not matter at all what anybody else says. Either you trust the person you worked with to share it with you, or you do not in which case you probably shouldn't be working with them in the first place. This WILL NOT make any more work for a GM than the current system, as it is entirely up to the players if they want to share their RIP bonus or not. I am not trying to force anybody to share anything, but I feel the option should be there.

Well if you put it like that...ok.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:42 am

Gone wrote:Nick, if we keep the system as it is (with no shared RIP bonuses), then the amount of work for the GM really is minimal. Any GM that would threaten to stop running games because of it needs to look at their own actions closely. It is you, not Al, whose attitude is "my way or the highway".

D@mn Nick! You made me agree with TK! Thanks buddy.

I remember you saying that when the rating system was discussed that you were not in favour of the system, but that 'as always' you would adhere to any decision made by the WSC.

Now threatening to not GM because you don't get your way doesn't seem to be in line with your previous statements.

I mean i could also go on record that i do not want to gm any more games if i can't decide for myself who gets to win my games...i'm a volunteer anyway so you can't make me do anything i don't want.

But actually you can make a volunteer follow rules. Although i do agree with Bryk that a rule that does more damage than good is a bad one, this is not the case here. Right now only one GM has said he doesn't agree with this and knowing Nick he'll not give up GM-ing because he simply likes it too much.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:46 am

Dameon wrote:Yep TK has a good point there, all right. In any case, I was never refusing to use the rating because it was a lot of work, which it clearly isn't, but because I don't like the RIP bonuses idea which are often completely non-reflective of reality. I would not mind keeping track of ratings in terms of who gets RIPped and when, and what place people finished in, but I have a feeling that Al and co. wouldn't want that info if I wasn't including RIP bonuses as well, which I don't intend to.

Hey don't say Al and co...say Saladin and that little Austrian guy.

Anyway...that's all you have to record. Who get ripped on what turn and by who. You don't have to keep track of any rating changes...that's Donut's job, lord know he gets payed well enough for it!

I like the M-3 change, btw. I also think that it is sad that all of you think that a shared RIP bonus would cause chaos and arguments- my suggestion is why not try it? If it really does cause bad feelings than we can easily drop it, but why not give it a chance? I think some folks might be surprised how well it could work. I guess we'll have to bring this to a WSC vote it looks like- I will formulate the wording and send it when I have some more time later tonight.

If it only comes down to a player who makes a rip announcing that he'll share the bonus with another player (or two) i don't mind. Though now you're forcing Donut to take out his calculator.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:53 am

Larry,

1. The games you GM? What games? That was a lifetime (read: 4 clans)ago that you gm-ed!

2. Yes it is childish...if the community agrees on something you disagree with then to say that you won't GM any more...CHILDISH. You should know how to follow rules being a (former) slave to the army and such.

3. When are you going to find another clan to 'play' for?

4. Does Ecrivian really whipe your @ss everytime you've taken a dump or does it only appear that way?

Brykovian · Post by **Brykovian** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:19 pm

Sorry, Sal ... You're wrong here going after Cal. He's made a legitimate point, and it was the basis I had for wondering if this was going to lead to fewer GMs. When Nick whines about something, I shrug and sometimes I even go as far as rolling my eyes -- but in the end, I just assume Nick needs *something* to whine about from time to time, so I figured this is his current pick ...

But then another excellent GM (I played in GM Larry's games back in that lifetime you mentioned -- they were excellently run) makes a point that sounds similar to what's been going on in my head (albeit, a bit more "directly" stated

) ... and so I started to wonder, that's all.

In other words -- back off Larry ... keep after Nick.

-Bryk

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:27 pm

But i like Nick and would like to have a nice long blood feud with Calidus from now on (so don't ruin my flamer with rational thought!)

Post by **Hannibal** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:16 pm

I really can't see what all the fuss is about (although it does make great reading).

1. If some GM's think the rating system extraneous, pointless and not worth bothering with, why on earth do they get so exercised about it?? How can they say it won't matter, and then argue tooth and nail as if it does? OK, what actual HARM could it possibly do? Spoil your games? How? What does it cost you to just go with the flow, no work beyond recording who ripped who on what turn, the rest is over to Donut. It costs you so little to comply with the consensus that it makes no sense, except only in the sense of wanting to throw your ego around on any little topic. I repeat the challenge: tell me how you would suffer in any way at all by complying? Except for climbdown.

2. Shared rips and all that. Easy. Hey, this is supposed to be an experimental period. We just structure for the most complex way, and record results in the complex, medium, and easy way, and compare results later. Dead easy. You adopt whichever system requires the most data (Dameon's on sharing RIP's), and the others (no shared rips, and no rip bonuses at all), are automatically data-captured at the same time (note: the reverse does not apply, so you have to data-capture on the most data-requiring premise). Then, after 6 months or so, you crunch the numbers acc to all 3 systems and see whether it made any appreciable difference worth having flamed over. My money is on it showing how very little difference this dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin would have made anyway......but at least we'll have all three columns side-by-side to see how much difference there was and whether it was worth ego-fighting over in the first place - I suspect not. The ratings will be almost indistinguishable, and the rank ordering even less affected.

Hey, I saw Calidus's post about this causing much whining and moaning.....but I bet it's far less than the whining and moaning already on this thread about the mere prospect of it.......

Come on, lighten up and go with the flow when you can, for the good of all. - and this from someone who is no fan of any rating system!

Post by **Hannibal** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:00 pm

[quote="Bjorn"]
"Remember where this started. Hannibal (and others) suggested that we somehow find a way to create a rating system that rewarded players for doing well even if they did not win VPs often. The objective was to have a system where just being one of the last 4 or 5 players would have some reward."

Bjorn is (for once) mistaken here. I never proposed having any kind of rating system. Indeed, I opposed it on the grounds it was a poor, pale alternative to revamping the VP system, a sop that would not count for much and would probably fall into disuse. It's the VP system that has any real clout, and that is currently configured to keep happy an evolving nucleus of 10-20 successful players...(apparently including me now!)......not in the least configured for a community that might otherwise grow to hundreds or thousands, not all of whom are driven by the rules that drive who is in the Champs.

See the thread on "Suggestion for a new VP awarding system" for a fuller argument.

If ANYONE should feel at all aggrieved by the new rating system, it's ME !!!......because it hijacked/sidestepped my suggestion for updating the VP system for a bigger community! I was mugged. So were the prospective, elusive, thousands who might start on the ladder as newbies in the future, though they patently have no vote against the regulars who post on the boards and are intrinsically, inevitably, conservative, and bound by seeing the community only on its current scale......

But I'm happy to go with the consensus. I can't see any HARM in the rating system. I just don't want it to be the futile easy-out for revamping the vp system for a bigger community. So I don't quibble with the rating rules, I don't refuse to play under a GM who refuses rating.....no, who accepts rating......no, both.....no, neither.....aah, just silly. .

Post by **Dameon** » Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:11 pm

Ugh, what a headache. Look, the bottom line is I don't like the rating system. As Cal said, it is very similar to the way we used to keep track of how many turns folks survived as part of the old HiScore, an idea we eventually jettisoned because it wasn't doing any realistic good. There are some differences, true, but the basic concept is the same.

The reason I am TRYING to introduce this shared-RIP bonus idea is because if the players of Kaomaris want this rating system, I am going to do my best to have one I can live with and would not feel is fatally flawed in its implementation. I don't agree with Al and co about the reasoning behind the system, and I really, really don't like rewarding people for getting a good OOP. Yes, it does come right back to my favorite LUCK argument, hmm?

And Saladin is right, I would prefer never to give up GMing, and the only reason the issue came up at all was because Al at one point suggested that if I didn't use the rating system then I would more or less have to. I simply am not going to use the system if I do not feel comfortable with it, and I also believe that given the fact there are never enough games to go around players are going to pass on mine (or Larry's) simply because they are not rated. VPs are still awarded after all and those are what's really important...I apologize to those who believe that my games not being rated would help spoil the system, but in my view, the system is spoiled from the get-go so my games being rated or not will have little to no effect on the usefulness (or should I say uselessness?) of the system.