Originally posted by CoconutI read it. They are valid points, so are mine. If it were that simple, why would Russ haveinitiated this vote?
Please read Tebb's post if you haven't already. It really explains it all well. It doesn't take abuse for the system to seriously mess up.
edit: Yes I saw the XFL. How's that sleeping thing going?
I know there are issues either way, but I had promised sometime ago I would put it to the community, and never did. Anyway, some feedback arrived reminding me of what I had said, so I created the vote.
I am pleased with all the posts so far in the thread, and the response to the vote. Once the vote has been closed, this long running issue can be put to rest.
-Russ
Originally posted by seraphimvultureI have to agree. But what the rating system really needs is a rating floor for each individual. How many times do we see players rated above 1800 take on too many games and then just forfeit them all! This drops their rating down around 1200 and pisses their opponent off who, even by winning 3 out of 4 games, lost a ton of rating points!
Anyone in America remember the XFL? No? Very few of you? Well, this new ratings system is the chess equivilant of the XFL, it seems like a snazzy idea but it's got more holes than a box of Cheerios. Vote against it.
-Kev
By giving an established player a floor rating (attained after 1 year of play, for example), then they couldn't drop more than 100 or 200 rating points. THIS is what the system really needs.
Originally posted by PalynkaI think he means just this specific system argument. There'll always be some upstart out-of-box thinker who'll have some 5-minute thought-out idea of how to change something on this site that shouldn't be changed. The Site Ideas forum is funnier than this one, for god sakes.
Isn't that a blow for all that defend a different system altogether and are not getting a chance to vote for that?
And by the way, don't you think horses as Knights are rather dated at this point? Why don't we replace our form of a Knight with one of the little cars from Monopoly?
Well so far a massive 68 votes cast with 46 in favour of current system and 22 against.
Surely with something as major and important as this each current member should have received a message from Russ, drawing their attention to the vote?
At the present time just over 1% of those who have moved in the last 8 hours (I last moved just over 8 hours ago and am in position 4,386 in most recent movers) will be deciding the fate of the ratings system.
Is this really democratic?
Originally posted by seraphimvultureInteresting to know you consider all those that debated possibilities like rating floors to be jokes.
I think he means just this specific system argument. There'll always be some upstart out-of-box thinker who'll have some 5-minute thought-out idea of how to change something on this site that shouldn't be changed. The Site Ideas forum is funnier than this one, for god sakes.
And by the way, don't you think horses as Knights are rather dated ...[text shortened]... his point? Why don't we replace our form of a Knight with one of the little cars from Monopoly?
Were you born as God or is it just the hat?