early standings

@very-rusty said
Both parties do know at the start what the risks are as was already explained to you.

Don't play if you can't afford to take the risk.

-VR

seriously dude
why don't you address the issue of negative points?
you deflect all the time
if you are incapable of answering a question just say so
what is the purpose of negative points?
do you agree that they are fair?

@lemondrop said
seriously dude
why don't you address the issue of negative points?
you deflect all the time
if you are incapable of answering a question just say so
what is the purpose of negative points?
do you agree that they are fair?

mghrn55 has already explained it to you.

You already know how the point system works.

You and others have tried different ways to beat the system which were caught, we don't have to go into details, but we do know what I am talking about.

Why re-hash an issue that has been Voted on already, and discussed to death!!!

-VR

@very-rusty said
mghrn55 has already explained it to you.

You already know how the point system works.

You and others have tried different ways to beat the system which were caught, we don't have to go into details, but we do know what I am talking about.

Why re-hash an issue that has been Voted on already, and discussed to death!!!

-VR

moron

@lemondrop said
moron

Why do you always go to name calling when you can't win a debate over something?

It does say much about your character when you do that! 😉

-VR

@very-rusty said
Why do you always go to name calling when you can't win a debate over something?

It does say much about your character when you do that! 😉

-VR

I call it like I see it

@lemondrop said
I call it like I see it

I suppose you do, each morning you look in the mirror!!! 😛 😉

-VR

@lemondrop said
I see your argument and your logic
I just have this problem with negative points
losing a challenge by one point and then being blasted with a minus 10 points the same minus 10 if you had not one a single game
a distinction ought to be made

The negative points are necessary because not every clan plays the same number of challenges.
That was my point all along.

If you don't subtract points for a lost challenge, a clan could win 200 challenges and lose 400 and still win the title.
Now some may think that is OK.
But rest assured, there would be far more complaints the other way than there are now.

@mghrn55 said
The negative points are necessary because not every clan plays the same number of challenges.
That was my point all along.

If you don't subtract points for a lost challenge, a clan could win 200 challenges and lose 400 and still win the title.
Now some may think that is OK.
But rest assured, there would be far more complaints the other way than there are now.

even under the current system a can could win 200 matches and lose 400 and win the title

@lemondrop said
even under the current system a can could win 200 matches and lose 400 and win the title

But the odds are much more against that happening.
The current system represents a balance.
Not perfect, but a balance.

The gross points method was the metric a while back.
Before I joined this site I think.
But there had to be pressure to get away from that.
Point is this was tried before and discarded.

@mghrn55 said
But the odds are much more against that happening.
The current system represents a balance.
Not perfect, but a balance.

The gross points method was the metric a while back.
Before I joined this site I think.
But there had to be pressure to get away from that.
Point is this was tried before and discarded.

I would like to know why the gross points method was changed
where the pressure came from and why
obviously there was some playing loose with the rules as always happens
but I think it was much fairer