BorisTheFrugal wrote:

For people looking for what was said about him before:

http://www.wargear.net/players/info/zdisabled_376f55f5

It's a blessing and a curse: that's a LOT of CP that are now locked on that user....

I brought up some time ago that any games won by banned players should be obliterated (would not apply to players who asked to have account disabled), which would redistribute the CP points, as well as returning GR to those who lost games to those players. The second part is probably more controversial as not every game was compromised, but on the other hand how many people lost to NWO because they were not expecting a 2 player WGWF to take 3 hours and had to abandon game to take kid somewhere/have dinner/finally go to sleep? And I think it would be the easiest way logistically just to obliterate the games won.

Then again, I just went pretty far down the list and only found about 40 CP points locked up, and on global ranking again not very many disabled accounts on the first 10 or so pages.

what is cp?

champion points.  You get them for being top ranked on a board.

details:

www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=general:help:rankings#board_rankings_and_championship_points

There has been *tons* of discussion about how everyone wants to change how it works, etc.  but so far I'm not sure if much consensus was reached.

A-TEAM wrote:

what is cp?

Implemented and based on the numbers and Global point holdings from over 5 years ago, CPs are supposedly the most coveted of points you can get on this site.  For many of us, they are arbitrarily based, awkward and scaled poorly.  They are in effect mostly reserved for the metaphorical 1%, and hardly healthy for the site.

(Of course, this is just my opinion).

Xrayjay wrote:

I brought up some time ago that any games won by banned players should be obliterated (would not apply to players who asked to have account disabled), which would redistribute the CP points, as well as returning GR to those who lost games to those players. The second part is probably more controversial as not every game was compromised, but on the other hand how many people lost to NWO because they were not expecting a 2 player WGWF to take 3 hours and had to abandon game to take kid somewhere/have dinner/finally go to sleep? And I think it would be the easiest way logistically just to obliterate the games won.

I had probably 50+ games that I just surrendered in against him for this exact reason. A lightning game taking upwards of 2.5 hours plus. I would be in favor of the solution presented here.

i think banned players should just remained banned. what is the proper way to alert or address players suspected of having multiple accounts. Also, why are the riff rafts drawn to me. it's like flies at a bbq. or it could be that only the lowest and worst that wargear has to offer engage in wargear 1v1 games. - and sure included me in that too. all i know is that i have had more dealings with inconsiderate people than i think is normal.

A-TEAM wrote:

i think banned players should just remained banned. what is the proper way to alert or address players suspected of having multiple accounts. Also, why are the riff rafts drawn to me. it's like flies at a bbq. or it could be that only the lowest and worst that wargear has to offer engage in wargear 1v1 games. - and sure included me in that too. all i know is that i have had more dealings with inconsiderate people than i think is normal.

You play WGWF all but exclusively (Strike One)

You play mostly 2-player games (Strike Two)  No biggy, you're still at the plate patiently waiting for your pitch..  Here it comes..

You play mostly Real-Time games (a favorite hang-out for jerks who use the clock to win)..  Here comes the pitch..

STEEEERIKE THERRRRREEEE!  

M57 wrote:

A-TEAM wrote:

i think banned players should just remained banned. what is the proper way to alert or address players suspected of having multiple accounts. Also, why are the riff rafts drawn to me. it's like flies at a bbq. or it could be that only the lowest and worst that wargear has to offer engage in wargear 1v1 games. - and sure included me in that too. all i know is that i have had more dealings with inconsiderate people than i think is normal.

You play WGWF all but exclusively (Strike One)

You play mostly 2-player games (Strike Two)  No biggy, you're still at the plate patiently waiting for your pitch..  Here it comes..

You play mostly Real-Time games (a favorite hang-out for jerks who use the clock to win)..  Here comes the pitch..

STEEEERIKE THERRRRREEEE!  

 

Let me say too, that I don't think M57 is saying any of things necessarily reflect badly on you, just that you are more likely to run into abrasive players in the venues that you frequent.

Ozyman wrote:

M57 wrote:

You play WGWF all but exclusively (Strike One)

You play mostly 2-player games (Strike Two)  No biggy, you're still at the plate patiently waiting for your pitch..  Here it comes..

You play mostly Real-Time games (a favorite hang-out for jerks who use the clock to win)..  Here comes the pitch..

STEEEERIKE THERRRRREEEE!  

Let me say too, that I don't think M57 is saying any of things necessarily reflect badly on you, just that you are more likely to run into abrasive players in the venues that you frequent.

Right, it's not a criticism of you as a player; it's just that you've picked a playing environment were you're bound to run into a high percentage of *-holes.

Besides, I can't think of a anything more boring than 1v1 WGWF.  Half the games are decided by territory allocation and seat position before the first round of dice are thrown.  Not to mention if you're a point chaser, it's a dead-end. There's SO much more that this site has to offer.

*-holes.

+1 for use of rebus/logograph.

Cramchakle wrote:

*-holes.

+1 for use of rebus/logograph.

I had to google both of those words to figure out what I did.

M57 wrote:

Cramchakle wrote:

*-holes.

+1 for use of rebus/logograph.

I had to google both of those words to figure out what I did.

and here i thought it was just a "Grawlixe"

ok. thanks.

weathertop wrote:

M57 wrote:

Cramchakle wrote:

*-holes.

+1 for use of rebus/logograph.

I had to google both of those words to figure out what I did.

and here i thought it was just a "Grawlixe"

I had to google that to find out what you didn't do. ...or did... 

ratsy wrote:

weathertop wrote:

M57 wrote:

Cramchakle wrote:

*-holes.

+1 for use of rebus/logograph.

I had to google both of those words to figure out what I did.

and here i thought it was just a "Grawlixe"

I had to google that to find out what you didn't do. ...or did... 

Not knowing what a rebus or logograph is, I would have tacitly accepted grawlix, but the former pair is definitely more apropos.

M57 wrote:

A-TEAM wrote:

what is cp?

Implemented and based on the numbers and Global point holdings from over 5 years ago, CPs are supposedly the most coveted of points you can get on this site.  For many of us, they are arbitrarily based, awkward and scaled poorly.  They are in effect mostly reserved for the metaphorical 1%, and hardly healthy for the site.

(Of course, this is just my opinion).

Speaking as part of the 1% I don't like it either.  I do think there was a fair amount of consensus about trying out "option I", but not much political will. By the time the thing was passionately talked ad nauseam and we of got to a point where people were generally on the same page it ran out of steam. 

itsnotatumor wrote:

M57 wrote:

A-TEAM wrote:

what is cp?

Implemented and based on the numbers and Global point holdings from over 5 years ago, CPs are supposedly the most coveted of points you can get on this site.  For many of us, they are arbitrarily based, awkward and scaled poorly.  They are in effect mostly reserved for the metaphorical 1%, and hardly healthy for the site.

(Of course, this is just my opinion).

Speaking as part of the 1% I don't like it either.  I do think there was a fair amount of consensus about trying out "option I", but not much political will. By the time the thing was passionately talked ad nauseam and we of got to a point where people were generally on the same page it ran out of steam. 

Remember we (the users who care) are essentially an impotent Senate that talks a lot, living under a (thankfully benevolent) dictator who can pick and choose what part of the talking he listens to. Did Tom even weigh in once on the very lengthy discussion to get around to Option I? I'd go back through and wade amongst the posts looking, but there are just too many.

Xrayjay wrote:

Remember we (the users who care) are essentially an impotent Senate that talks a lot, living under a (thankfully benevolent) dictator who can pick and choose what part of the talking he listens to. Did Tom even weigh in once on the very lengthy discussion to get around to Option I? I'd go back through and wade amongst the posts looking, but there are just too many.

Option I did not enjoy full site consensus, not that anything could when there were a dozen+ ideas floated, but it was highly debated and in pseudo-voting was a favorite if not on the short list of many.  Full disclosure, when I come up with the idea, I was fully capable of being relentless in lobbying for it.

That said, CPs and Rankings (General, Colonel, etc.) are the top layer of the stats machine, and perhaps the more important part of that machine that needs an overhaul is its underpinnings.. the Global point system.  These things can exist separately .. I.e., you can pretty much couple any CP system with any GR system with a little tweaking here and there, so technically you don't have to do change/implement either or both at the same time, but in that the GR is fundamental and the CP system is much more arbitrary in nature, it makes sense to know that a long term GR plan is in place.  So for instance, I'd be curious to know if Tom is amenable to crossing over to a Trueskill-like system?  If so, we should wait for him to implement that, and then tweak the new CP system on top.  If not, then by all means.. we need to make noise about putting a more egalitarian CP system in place.

M57 wrote:

Xrayjay wrote:

Remember we (the users who care) are essentially an impotent Senate that talks a lot, living under a (thankfully benevolent) dictator who can pick and choose what part of the talking he listens to. Did Tom even weigh in once on the very lengthy discussion to get around to Option I? I'd go back through and wade amongst the posts looking, but there are just too many.

Option I did not enjoy full site consensus, not that anything could when there were a dozen+ ideas floated, but it was highly debated and in pseudo-voting was a favorite if not on the short list of many.  Full disclosure, when I come up with the idea, I was fully capable of being relentless in lobbying for it.

That said, CPs and Rankings (General, Colonel, etc.) are the top layer of the stats machine, and perhaps the more important part of that machine that needs an overhaul is its underpinnings.. the Global point system.  These things can exist separately .. I.e., you can pretty much couple any CP system with any GR system with a little tweaking here and there, so technically you don't have to do change/implement either or both at the same time, but in that the GR is fundamental and the CP system is much more arbitrary in nature, it makes sense to know that a long term GR plan is in place.  So for instance, I'd be curious to know if Tom is amenable to crossing over to a Trueskill-like system?  If so, we should wait for him to implement that, and then tweak the new CP system on top.  If not, then by all means.. we need to make noise about putting a more egalitarian CP system in place.

If I recall - that moot ended with Tom saying: he'd be happy to implement some kind of a trueskill like system, so long as someone was able to re-create it - and someone volunteered - sort of, but I bet it fell off the radar. 

Then we also had the idea to give out rankings over 5 categories - to reflect different strengths - and someone just needed to make the badges for that - which I considered, but got busy with RL. 

With TrueSkill I'm not clear how it works with a game like WarGear where there is only one winner and the rest are losers. It seems more geared to a game outcome where the game results in a ranked of 1-n for an n-player game: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/details.aspx

Still looking for a badge update volunteer - if not then my next step will be to commission then from someone external.