RE: [mepbmlist] Time to move on

[Urzahil]

Well, Mr. Shimel seems to have descended into a tantrum of name-calling
because his "arguments" haven't squashed the notion of a ratings system.

Clint NEVER said that this system would not be implemented if anyone
objected. He asked for input on what we felt was good or bad about it in
an attempt to make it better. I have not seen any postings by Clint that
implied he would scrap the very concept of a ratings system, (without
even attempting to see if it might work), if someone complained loudly
over and over and over again. In fact, he has said that he took Mr.
Shimel's input with everyone elses, and will use it in the final
determination of what to do in the end.

Clint has, (quite reasonably), stated that he would like to try
something new and see how it worked out, tweaking it (or scrapping it),
based on actual player experience with the new feature. He has asked for
our opinions on what might be the best approach, and has been nothing
but polite and patient while doing so. In return Mr. Shimel has falsely
accused him of "reacting violently" and "lying". (And interestingly
enough, Mr. Shimel seems to be the only one to accuse him of this.)

Darrell, you have added your opinion quite forcefully to the debate. You
have made your level of commitment to that opinion painfully clear time
and time again. You have stated unequivocally how the rest of the MePBM
player community WILL DEFINITELY react to these ratings, (despite your
lack of proof as to your prescient abilities), and that a large number
of MePBM players are dishonest and manipulative enough to certainly
succumb to the temptations of glory associated with a player ratings
sytem. You have done all this with what is quickly approaching a rude
and obnoxious level of fanatacism. Continuing on down this path will
likely not win you any converts to your point of view, so perhaps it is
time to accept that a player ratings system is probably going to be
attempted. Why not try to make it the best one possible by suggesting
how it might best avoid some of the pitfalls you are so concerned about.
("The best way to improve the system is to not use it." is obviously not
a constructive way of contributing to the discussion at this point.)

Your arguments seemed well thought-out and coherent, (at least in the
beginning), so why not put some thought into what would make a player
ratings system better. After all, your predictions of the downfall of
MePBM might not come true, and the player ratings system might end up
remaining a part of MePBM. Don't you want to be a part of crafting such
a system in case it survives?

Oh, and for those who care about such things, I'm one of those players
that some think won't benefit from a ratings system. I play occasionally
(2-4 games per year). I can't remember the last time I lifed a finger to
obtain one of my individual victory conditions. (In the two games I'm
in, I couldn't tell you what my IVCs are without looking.) I've placed
in a few games, but only a small minority. I've been on the winning side
as often as not. But even given all this, I would still like to at least
try a player ratings system.

<insert bullseye here>
Mike Mulka

>-----Original Message-----
>From: corsairs game 101 [mailto:corsairs101@...]
>Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:56 PM
>To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Player Rating
>
> >One basic concept that I am interested in is trust of the GMs. Over
> >time we have attempted to build up a base of trust with the players
> >about the methodology of the games we run. With that in mind I think
> >that the Player Rating scheme is a good one

>If you want to be tursted, then step one is to quit lieing
>to us. You throw out an idea to discussion asking for input, but
>you've already decided you are going to go with it.
>
>What is that other English speaking company that runs this game? Damn,
>there isn't one anymore.
>
>How about a public vote. If we have to publically give our names to
>have an opinion count, I think we should have to publically give a name

>and vote to the whole list in order for the vote to count, majority
>wins.
>
> >So feedback on what would improve the system would be very useful.
>
>The best way to improve the system is to not use it.
>
>Darrell Shimel

[corsairs game 101]

>Well, Mr. Shimel seems to have descended into a tantrum of name-calling
>because his "arguments" haven't squashed the notion of a ratings system.

Tantrum of name calling? Please. ME Games asks for input "good or bad".
The vast majority of the input is negative. Many saying they will just
ignore it. A flood of emails not likeing the return to the VPs that reward
personal vs. team play. A flood of emails hoping there will be "un-ranked"
games. Ideas of voting for best players vs. some inane mathimatical
formula.

ME Games then comes back with an email on how they've tried to build trust,
but they really want to try this system. There have been "off board"
messages in favor of it, trust us. It would now be better to talk about
imrpoving the idea instead of continuing to discuss if it will happen or
not.

What did the expect?

>Clint NEVER said that this system would not be implemented if anyone
>objected. He asked for input on what we felt was good or bad about it in
>an attempt to make it better.

Incorrect. After I pointed out the thin ice he was on by trying to ram rod
this down our throats, there were many postings that contained comments such
as "if it is implimented at all".

If enough people object, it will not be used. If that line of thinking was
at all influenced by my pointing out that he was lying, then it was good
that I pointed out the deciet.

>Darrell, you have added your opinion quite forcefully to the debate.

I only replied to others posts. There are a few supporters of the idea that
have posted as much, or nearly as much, as have I.



>You
>have made your level of commitment to that opinion painfully clear time
>and time again.

As you have made your support of the idea very clear. If this "time and
time again" is an attempt to shame me and shut me up, it has failed
miserably.

As with punishing people for not doing ME Game's job for them, and the idea
of having to put your name to a post for it to be taken into account, I'll
not be quiet on policies I greatly dislike. People may ignore me if they
like, but others will read, see the soundness of my reasoning, and be
equally outraged at the actions of ME Games.

>You have stated unequivocally how the rest of the MePBM
>player community WILL DEFINITELY react to these ratings, (despite your
>lack of proof as to your prescient abilities),

I've played other games where ranking systems are used. Mostly computer
games such as Red Alert and Fantasy Realms. When individuals play against
each other, they play for fun. Once there is a ranking system, with
bragging rights on the line, people play for max points. Not everyone, just
enough to mess up the people that play for fun.


>and that a large number
>of MePBM players are dishonest and manipulative enough to certainly
>succumb to the temptations of glory associated with a player ratings
>sytem.

Why have a ranking system if it is not to encourage people to try to
increase their ranking? It need not be a majority or even a near even
split. All it would take is one to two players per game in the neutral
positions that decide to pile onto the winning side to get the game over
with so that they can get thier points and move on to the next game. A very
small minority could really mess up the game.

>You have done all this with what is quickly approaching a rude
>and obnoxious level of fanatacism.

Sorry, perhaps I overreacted. I've always been better with math and logic
skills than interpersonal skills. I truely have tried to stay on the issue.

>Continuing on down this path will
>likely not win you any converts to your point of view, so perhaps it is
>time to accept that a player ratings system is probably going to be
>attempted.

NO!!!!!!! I will not shut up and go away. It is this type of slap that
causes me top react strongly. Deal with the points, and quit trying to shut
me up!

>Why not try to make it the best one possible by suggesting
>how it might best avoid some of the pitfalls you are so concerned about.

Don't use it!!!! Any modifications will just create a different set of
rules that those who want bragging rights will exploit to maximize their
points and bragging rights.

>("The best way to improve the system is to not use it." is obviously not
>a constructive way of contributing to the discussion at this point.)

Say what? I think that any ranking system will cause some players to alter
their style for the sake of increasing their ranking. For that reason, I
think any system is a bad idea. How can it not be constructive to say so?

Why not address my points instead of trying to silence me?


>Your arguments seemed well thought-out and coherent, (at least in the
>beginning), so why not put some thought into what would make a player
>ratings system better.

Why not address the point that any system would be worse than none? Why
waste so much time trying to get me to shut up?

>I would still like to at least
>try a player ratings system.

Why? What do you see as the potential gain from the system? Being able to
brag that you were able to exploit the rules of the ranking system? To have
a list of those that do expoit the system shoved in your face once a month
as "the best players"? If they are not "the best players", than what is
supposed to be represented by this list?

What is the point of the system?

>
><insert bullseye here>
>Mike Mulka

Darrell (more posts about him than about his arguments) Shimel

[Middle Earth PBM Games]

>The vast majority of the input is negative.

*** Not from a players perspective, from a quantity perspective possibly.
(For clarity) But I'll leave that for each player to decide themselves.

Clint