Re: [pbmserv-dev] Re: Backgammon Standings

[Lyman Hurd <lhurd@yahoo.com>]

Sounds as if we have some different goals expressed.

1) As far as "bragging rights" goes, people don't want
to see players in the display who cannot be
challenged.  A similar argument says that one needs to
mentally discount people in the combined list with a
1-0 record (leading to an enormous score). For that
matter it might be cool to be able to add honorifics
such as "Winner of 2004 Email Tournament" into the
rankings.  I for one don't care about this aspect at
all which brings me to...

2) The rankings are useful for finding opponents.  For
one thing does anyone use "Seeking" for anything
meaningful.  I have seen examples where people have
the "Limit" set below their "Seeking" number.  How can
you be seeking more games than you are willing to
accept?  The last date a game was started (completed?)
 would be a big help in interpreting the results (for
example, I recently ran a query to see who the active
hexade players are).  Also perhaps instead of
"seeking" we could indicate a scale of willingness
something like:

1 - Willing to accept unsolicited challenges.

2 - Generally willing to play but inquire first.

3 - Play only with prearranged opponents (don't call
me, I'll call you).

4 - Reject (i.e., not willing to play).

Just a thought!

Lyman


--- Richard Rognlie <rrognlie@gamerz.net> wrote:
> I'm contemplating a change to the ratings display.
> 
> Look at lunkin.   he's #1.   unassailable.   and not
> accepting any
> challenges, either.
> 
> 
> 
> I added code a while ago to not display players who
> are no longer in
> the player list.   I'm thinking about also not
> displaying players who
> are rejecting games and have no games active.
> 
> >                 Established
> >                 ===========
> > Rank Name             Rating  Won Lost  
> Active/Limit  Seeking
> > ---- ---------------- ------ ---- ----  
> ------------  -------
> >   1  lunkin             1977  134   86        
> /reject
> >   2  rrognlie           1960  967  917       7    
>    
> >   3  rus                1938  114   65        
> /reject
> >   4  redrob             1924   51   37       3    
>    
> >   5  uo9man             1914  178  110            
>    
> >   6  rramirez           1913   55   34       2    
>    
> >   7  gjug               1909   65   47       1 / 3
>    
> >   8  frolind            1883  133   79      13 /
> 32         20
> >   9  philipg            1881  411  286        
> /reject
> >  10  frankb33           1878  186  107      14    
>    
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -- 
>  /  \__  | Richard Rognlie / Sendmail Ninja /
> Gamerz.NET Lackey
>  \__/  \ | Work like you don't need the money   
> www.gamerz.net/~rrognlie
>  /  \__/ | Love like you've never been hurt     
> <rrognlie at gamerz.net>
>  \__/    | Dance like nobody's watching -- "Satchel"
> Paige
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net
> with
> 	unsubscribe pbmserv-dev@gamerz.net
> as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
>