26 Jun 06
Come on guys, let's set up tournament moderators. Pass the burden of setting up tournaments to people who want to set up exciting tournaments. ALL official tournaments have arbiters. Moderators could keep the banded tournaments banded, they could sort out the Tournaments overview, removing all the cheats. We would no longer have to complain about lack of tournaments, or have to pester you to start this tournament or that. It's a win - win situation!!
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by marinakatombYou can't see a person's whole graph.
Banded tournaments need common sense. We all know when someone should be in a band and when they shouldn't...
If the mods could have a tool like that, sure, but I still believe a banded tournament rating calculation should be done instead of the 30 day high.
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by CrowleyIn an ideal World you are right, but how would that be created? It's been brought up before and no one can come up with a calculation (at least i've never seen anyone....)
You can't see a person's whole graph.
If the mods could have a tool like that, sure, but I still believe a banded tournament rating calculation should be done instead of the 30 day high.
27 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by marinakatombkeep it simple: an all-time high.
In an ideal World you are right, but how would that be created? It's been brought up before and no one can come up with a calculation (at least i've never seen anyone....)
you can't enter a banded tourny if your all time high is 100 points or more above the top of the band.
problem solved.
(well i suppose you still have the problem of people who are new to the site and whose ratings are still on the way up. most common problem solved though.)
27 Jun 06
Originally posted by murrowNot even close, in my opinion...
keep it simple: an all-time high.
you can't enter a banded tourny if your all time high is 100 points or more above the top of the band.
problem solved.
(well i suppose you still have the problem of people who are new to the site and whose ratings are still on the way up. most common problem solved though.)
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by murrowIt's too simplistic surely. There are people who could be unfairly excluded from a band as a result.
how come?
surely this would have prevented all the people who notoriously have entered tournaments in a band well below their ability just to lift a title...?
it would be very simple to implement too.
I'd imagine a good proportion of genuine 1,000 players will have non-provisional highs of around 1,200. Plus it's not that uncommon to see spikes of a couple of high rating scoring wins, though timeouts perhaps, where a player can rise well above normal.
The 100 point idea would prevent some players entering suitable bands on a permanent basis.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by Peakiteokay 200 then.
It's too simplistic surely. There are people who could be unfairly excluded from a band as a result.
I'd imagine a good proportion of genuine 1,000 players will have non-provisional highs of around 1,200. Plus it's not that uncommon to see spikes of a couple of high rating scoring wins, though timeouts perhaps, where a player can rise well above normal.
The 100 point idea would prevent some players entering suitable bands on a permanent basis.
simple was the idea.
02 Jul 06
I thought that perhaps it would be possible to have an average of three ratings.
Current rating + Highest in last 30 days + Highest ever / 3
So, for me it would be...
1803 + 1833 + 1866 /3 = 1834
This doesn't really change much though as the result is almost idential to my 30 day high. No, in my opinion the only way to resolve this properly is to have a human being using common sense! If a 2000 rated player returns from a break after 300 timeouts, they should be removed from 1200 banded tournies! A person can spot these people easily, it's the only way!
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
02 Jul 06
Originally posted by marinakatombOk. This has been mentioned before.
No, in my opinion the only way to resolve this properly is to have a human being using common sense!
You seem keen, and if it were possible for Russ to tweak the site so that you could bump people up (or down) a few groups before the tourney starts, then fine, I'd support it for a 3 month trial.
The trouble is that everyone who plays in tourneys has paid membership, so if you p*** people off, it hits the site financially. I think this needs more than just willingness to do the work - e.g. who is liable if your password is pinched and alot of people get kicked out of tourneys?
I think that tweaking the site to give a very few people extra access rights is likely to be a lot of work, and there are a few more important tournament fixes (like the under 6 games p1200 being allowed bug), so alot depends on the site maintainers.
So Rec'd in principle, depending on if and when Russ has time to do the work,
Gezza
03 Jul 06
Originally posted by marinakatombnice job coming up with an idea on your own and getting 7 recs for it. Holy crap.
Come on guys, let's set up tournament moderators. Pass the burden of setting up tournaments to people who want to set up exciting tournaments. ALL official tournaments have arbiters. Moderators could keep the banded tournaments banded, they could sort out the Tournaments overview, removing all the cheats. We would no longer have to complain about lack o ...[text shortened]... rnaments, or have to pester you to start this tournament or that. It's a win - win situation!!