Posts:
1,032
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Powell, OH
Age:
37 Home page
Re: leaderboard
Posted:
Sep 16, 2008, 5:45 PM
Fair enough, I did not mean to say that because zoey did x,y,z he shouldn't be attacked personally, nor was I saying that others like you mentioned aren't helping make this a great pente site, they of course are!
I meant to say 1. no player should be attacked personally and 2. zoey was not crying in my opinion, he was trying to help with constructive criticism of the leaderboard.
Posts:
107
Registered:
Feb 17, 2008
From:
Edge of Space Home page
Re: leaderboard
Posted:
Sep 16, 2008, 5:54 PM
If you went back and read where this lil' exchange started, you'd find that mike very succinctly (on point and with no flair for personal attack) made mention that the leaderboard might cure the ill of abnormal point protecting around here and then a couple of peeps that were apparently put off by that began a condescending exchange. Somebody said it before and I'll reiterate here....Go Mikey!!!!
Posts:
1,032
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Powell, OH
Age:
37 Home page
Re: leaderboard
Posted:
Sep 16, 2008, 6:09 PM
I have read the whole thing, I read every post made on the pente.org forums.
I don't have a problem with what Mike said, and am glad he chipped in his opinion on the leaderboard. That is what I was asking for in this topic.
And I agree, the "yawn" comment doesn't help persuade anyone to your side, unless you've already made up your mind. Obviously this thread is reigniting recent past threads on the ratings issue.
I don't understand why everyone is saying "go mike," when as far as I can tell all he has done is ridicule and demean players who, for reasons of their own which he has no right to comment on, make the personal choice to play selectively rather than openly. It's really pathetic that the debate has escalated this far. Unlike several other players here who have actually provided reasoning for their opinions (dweebo, zoey, mersenne, me, and even redsky) mike has posted one-liners. I replied with a one-liner because I didn't want to get into a huge debate, but it didn't work.
And finally, with regards to the nebulous isssue of who has "contributed" more to the site, let's just look at one indicator:
Zoeyk has made 276 posts on the discussion fora, most (but not all) of which are detailed analyses of aspects of pente theory and collateral issues.
Mike321 has made 48 posts on the discussion fora, most of which (since I've been a member of the site; that is, since March 2006) have been one-liners.
(for comparison, the most are dweebo with 859 and me with 638, but mine are mostly bullsh*t)
I use only this thread as evidence since I have class in 15 minutes, but if anyone wishes to contradict me please cite your sources.
-K
It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Posts:
107
Registered:
Feb 17, 2008
From:
Edge of Space Home page
Re: leaderboard
Posted:
Sep 16, 2008, 7:00 PM
Hmmmmm last I read mike's last post here was very much in line with what dweebo was asking for outta this thread and a couple of peeps that took exception to his view got rude....but hey, its been a long time since 10 minutes ago and maybe something else has transpired.
Here's my question about the weekly leaderboard karl- If you, mersenne, zoey and whoever else want to play selectively and less than every week by your own choice, then why do you care about having your name on the weekly board? Everyone's accepted the fact that you guys are gonna do what you wanna do with your ratings, etc, but why mess with a program that the rest of us wanna see implemented that should for all practical intents and purposes eliminate the squabble?
As far as contribution is concerned karl, how the hell are you gonna qualify who does more/less for the site? I can think of 1 admin thats been on duty here (besides D) over the last 5 years that's exemplified the idea that a true leader is designated as such by the people they lead, not by self proclaimation and she posted hardly more than a handful of times but brought more to this site than anyone else I can recall in recent years (without ever once asking for recognition or acknowledgement to that effect). Bummer that she's seen so rarely anymore too. I think it was a mistake for D to imply the competition in servitude (LMFAO servitude=competition....anyone picking up on the irony here?) by stating that z had brought more to the table than 99% of us lowly contributors. If you really wanna get into it tho, I'd suggest that posting, tourney management and game analysis are hardly a thorough criteria to guage contribution by. How about hospitality, sportsmanlike conduct, personality, community development, bringing people together......hell its like deciding who's a better friend than who....a foolish rabbit to hunt methinks.
Posts:
2,220
Registered:
Mar 4, 2007
From:
San Francisco
Age:
45 Home page
Re: leaderboard
Posted:
Sep 16, 2008, 10:03 PM
greetings, to whom it may concern;
1- [removed by dweebo, personal stuff not related to this thread]
2- mike321....I recall playing you 2 rated sets in a row a couple days ago. you also took a set from me. i said "well done" and gg. i also said that i looked forward to many more fun sets with you. and you stated that you agreed with this. (for what ever its worth, to whom ever.)
3- the Yawn.....in the Stat-Padding thread,.. on page 4 you'll notice that lepews responds to my post with "yawn" i consider the 3 of these guys to be a group with a common interest against me. when i saw mikes post that smelled of the stat-padding thread type i did not feel like being apart of that argument anymore, i had become bored of it, like some dripping fosset that won't stop dripping...so i replied with the same reply i had gotten from lepews (your partner in crime, so to speak).....Y A W N........don't slap my hand with out slapping lepews hand too. Equality and fairness.
4- and in closing,... Yes I plead guilty to the crime of point protection upon occasion. Yes I plead guilty to having been mouthy upon occasion.
i feel remorse, and look towards the future in limiting further occurrences of these un written ruled violations should i chose.
i do not ask for forgiveness,...but i do forgive those who in my opinion did wrong to me.
Peace.
oh and,...to go back on subject for a second., please by all means change the leader board to weekly, and name it anything you wish,...i look forward to it either way. i support the majorities desire on that subject, as i also don't actually strongly care one way or the other what happens with it aslong as it does something good for the site and community, was merly pointing out some thoughts on it is all. thanks.
and,..if i ever thought that deleting my account and never returning to pente.org would make the site and community a better place then i would do so,..the last thing ide ever want is to be considered some type of a cancer to the game of pente and to its community.
~Zoey
Message was edited by: zoeyk at Sep 16, 2008 4:06 PM
Message was edited by: dweebo at Sep 16, 2008 4:24 PM
Scire hostis animum - Intelligere ludum - Nosce te ipsum - Prima moventur conciliat - Nolite errare
Posts:
1,032
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Powell, OH
Age:
37 Home page
Re: leaderboard
Posted:
Sep 16, 2008, 10:24 PM
OK Zoey, All this stuff directed at redsky is the kind of stuff I DON'T want in the forums. Just like I don't want redsky talking trash about you in the forums. I just don't see how it has anything to do with what we are talking about. I realize you are trying to defend yourself, but I'm still removing it. If you want to talk to him send him a personal message.
I'm removing all that stuff from both posts since I'm tired of this.
Also, why are you talking to Mike, he didn't say anything directly to you about anything in this thread.
I must have overlooked lepews yawn comment. I wasn't slapping your hand, I was just saying I didn't see how it helped your arguments. So, my point works for anyone who does that.
Last point. I don't really want the job of "moderator of forum content", and in the past you'll see I haven't really moderated anyone else's words except for a few specific cases. My opinion is no better than anyone elses so who am I to judge, but I will try and remove personal attacks that I don't think belong here.
Posts:
2,220
Registered:
Mar 4, 2007
From:
San Francisco
Age:
45 Home page
Re: leaderboard
Posted:
Sep 16, 2008, 10:35 PM
i agree to remove my post and other post relative, i agree. and i agree that i should send my comments via private message, i am hipacritical in my action i must admit, based on past comments i have made about such behavior of others.
mikes comment although inocent looking i felt was a read inbetween the lines comment reflective of the stat-padding forum which led me to believe that he was still accusing me of the same from before, my post was to defend my point of change.
i wasn't saying that you had slapped my hand, but more over speaking to the person that had brought it up actually. that their friend said it to me, but i get hipacritically called on it, it felt.
i do not wish to give you nor others problems in the forums to warrant the need of moderation,
my apologies.
i do assume that if my defend comment is remove that the attacking comments that provock me are to be removed aswell,.. thanks.
~zoey
Message was edited by: zoeyk at Sep 16, 2008 4:36 PM
Scire hostis animum - Intelligere ludum - Nosce te ipsum - Prima moventur conciliat - Nolite errare
Posts:
1,032
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Powell, OH
Age:
37 Home page
Re: leaderboard
Posted:
Sep 16, 2008, 10:46 PM
> Everyone's accepted the > fact that you guys are gonna do what you wanna do > with your ratings,
That doesn't seem true since all the arguments in this thread and others is about what they do with their ratings.
> I think it was a mistake for D to imply the > competition in servitude (LMFAO > servitude=competition....anyone picking up on the > irony here?) by stating that z had brought more to > the table than 99% of us lowly contributors.
Why are you putting words in my mouth, I didn't call anyone a lowly contributor? And I already said it was not the best way to make my point.
I agree that there is no need to quantify anyone's contribution. I guess I was trying to argue that zoey is not ONLY motivated by his rating, he also cares alot about Pente and this site, and reading his earlier posts about this subject made it clear to me he was not trying to start any fights, he was just trying to give his opinion about the leaderboard which is what I asked for.
I'm still waiting for any of the vocal advocates of the time switch to address any or all (preferably all) of the problems I raised in my post dated Sep 15, 2008 4:10 PM. I will c & p them to prevent confusion:
--- a) If a red player is forced to play at least once a week to stay on the leaderboard, they will most likely have to play players with much lower ratings than them--like 200+ points. That's indisputable: there are very few high-rated truly consistently active players on this site--go to the "active" (under the current definition) red players and see how many rated games they have played this month. There are also several complicating factors; for example, due to an ongoing tournament which we will most likely both be in round 3 of, Richard and I are not playing sets.
b) White has a distinct advantage. We all know this. Because of this, a 1700-player has a very good chance of splitting a set with a 1900-player, even if their ratings reflect their skill. This means that a yellow player will gain points from a red without really having done anything to earn it.
c) This means that a top-ranked player, if forced to play on a weekly basis, will have an unfairly hard time keeping their true rating, while yellow players will find themselves with a steady source of free points. The yellows and red will likely switch places, and the cycle will begin again. If anyone thinks this is a good way of doing things, I would like to hear their justification. ---
Zoey mentioned similar arguments to this earlier, but people ignored him, too. I think if we're going to have an honest discussion about ratings and leaderboards, we need to follow the rules of debate, namely that a) arguments should consist of statements and supporting evidence and b) counterarguments should consist of refutation of previous arguments with contradicting evidence.
I have no personal opinion as to what the best time frame for "active players" should be, but I do believe that this prejudice against "ratings-hoggers" needs to be addressed in a civilized fashion.
-K
It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Posts:
107
Registered:
Feb 17, 2008
From:
Edge of Space Home page
Re: leaderboard
Posted:
Sep 17, 2008, 12:46 AM
Uhhhh well to address the objections from 14 posts ago....it was in order to point out a perceived implication D, and yes you already acknowledged the poor choice of words. As far as people accepting the fact that some players will play once in a blue moon in order to keep a post toward the top of the ratings, it is true and people ( by 'people', of course I mean myself) are glad to see a plausible solution in the leaderboard where only frequent players are stacked......the 'debate' as I would only loosely refer to it is only a point of contention for from what I can tell 2 or 3 people here who want to for whatever reason that I cannot get anyone to answer for put their names on a leaderboard for which they want no part in the competition (i.e. why do infrequent players CARE about their name not being on a frequent players leaderboard?).......the debate about point protecting, etc. obviously overlaps this one, but its not necessarily the same discourse when approached with the grey poupon ethic. This topic conveniently blends the worst of 3 threads here.... 1) Ratings issues (Can anyone say SET BASED?) 2)Point Protecting (Can anyone say SET BASED?) 3)The fact that we have barely evolved beyond stabbing each other with pieces of flint to solve conflict as a race. (Can anyone say Ugh?)
Posts:
751
Registered:
Mar 1, 2002
From:
My Own Lil World Mostly
Age:
43
Re: leaderboard
Posted:
Sep 17, 2008, 1:35 AM
a) Valid point but I feel it doesn't pertain to the "active leader board" (or whatever it is to be called)! The Reds are already on top of the highest rated and they are not FORCED to play. If their concern is keeping their high rating, don't worry about the "active leader board" (or whatever it is to be called).
b) Valid point from your perspective, but I don't agree that a yellow beating a red is not earning anything! Does anyone remember being the green, blue, whatever color player? It takes playing higher rated players to increase skill, does it not? I mean, yes, one can utilize the database, but like myself, I learn by doing and find memorizing 1000 lines rather boring, and difficult for ME to do. People learn in different ways. Most every red player here is entitled to keep their points and choose who, when they play, it is their right. If that is their concern, don't participate in the "active leader board" (or whatever it is to be called), it is okay, not even a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Your highest rating/rank will be displayed on the Ratings/Ranking page.
c) Again, no one is FORCED to keep themselves on the "active leader board" (or whatever it is to be called)
Further Comments: This is not about rank or highest rated overall, this "active leader board" (or whatever it is to be called) is for the purpose of encouraging anyone who WANTS to participate in a ladder type "active leader board" (or whatever it is to be called) to do so. In my opinion, the ratings page that allows you to search ratings is utilized for the purpose of displaying highest rated overall and the "active leader board" was intended to be used to encourage new users (or any user for that matter) to play! It is about traffic on the site, introduction to the game, learning the game, enjoying some pente!
Acknowledging the issues with the way ratings are done exists and causes some to "point protect" or whatever it may be called, my opinion on this is that it is up to every player to choose who they do and do not play. The way I see it is to utilize the "active leader board" (or whatever it is to be called) for Peters intended purpose, which was to encourage active play on the site. In my opinion, if high rated players want to see their name on the "active leader board" (or whatever it is to be called) they can play a game weekly against whomever they choose. I do not believe the "active leader board" (or whatever it is to be called) will be replacing the Ratings/Rankings page that is for the purpose of displaying highest rated overall, etc.
I love that everyone is so passionate about this game. PENTE ROCKS!
Thanks for sharing your opinions and please allow me to share my opinons as well. Please forgive my ramblings. I didn't proof my post before posting!
Have an awesome day Y'all! Life Rocks!
Peace and Light, Patricia
Message was edited by: partica at Sep 16, 2008 7:37 PM
Posts:
141
Registered:
Feb 29, 2004
From:
the land of smelly cheese
Age:
38
Re: leaderboard
Posted:
Sep 17, 2008, 3:36 AM
I really could not have put it any better than Patricia.
To me the leader board (and I like it called just that) is all about increasing traffic and interest on this site, because the more people play the more fun we ALL have.
This is why seeing it hugged by the same names kinda defeats its purpose, and why the idea of a reset based on activity (7 days being a good example) makes so much sense to me.
I guess I should apologize for any of my previous postings or comments if they may have been deemed inflammatory, but I still feel strongly about selective play in order to protect points and/or ratings as I truly believe this to be hurtful to both the game and the community.
I have often lost to much lower rated players and felt than the rating system was wrong. I have also, and a lot more often lately, won against much lower rated and provisional players, and even though I won their rating went UP and mine stayed unchanged! But these are the idiosyncrasies of the current points system, and I'm happy to live with it as everyone else has to.
I just would like the leader board to be what it's designed to be - a reflection of what's going on here on a daily or weekly basis.
As an example, we all know that nosovs is probably the strongest player we have seen here. But having played a total of 313 games here since 2001, I don't believe he can be classified as a very active player. However, if he's bothered to play a rated set often enough to stay on that leader board, then that's fine by me.
And the same is true for EVERYONE else. Give everyone a chance to get on that silver screen! Maybe it should be a daily leader board..
"c) This means that a top-ranked player, if forced to play on a weekly basis, will have an unfairly hard time keeping their true rating, while yellow players will find themselves with a steady source of free points. The yellows and red will likely switch places, and the cycle will begin again. If anyone thinks this is a good way of doing things, I would like to hear their justification."
My take on this is (based on my understanding of the rating system) that reds and yellows aren't going to "switch places" unless the red player is surpassed in skill by the yellow. To give a hypothetical example- if red A plays weekly against yellow B and they always split sets against each other and those games are the only games they play on site, then their rating points will equal each other. Whether that means they both become yellow or both become red would depend on where their points were when they started splitting every set. Once their points equalize, there is no disincentive for either player to play the other, provided they always split, but also no incentive for them to play each other (except perhaps to stay active). However, once player A and player B achieve this parity, the formerly lower rated player B is now faced with a similar dilemma to that faced by player A- to protect the new higher rating by only playing roughly equal or higher rated players or to continue to play players who have significantly lower ratings, despite the player 1 advantage.
My contention is this- things such as the active leader board, designed to encourage more play at the highest levels would probably have the following result: a general lowering of the ratings of the highest rated players who stay active. That doesn't mean, however, that yellows would have a steady source of free points (for one thing, there are a limited number of active reds from whom they could take points) or that yellows would switch places with reds.
Would it be bad to have all active reds have a somewhat lower rating? Depends. If it highlighted the need to address the player one advantage, I think it would actually be good. On the other hand, if it frustrated the best players of the game sufficiently that they went into retirement to protect their high ratings, then I would say yes it would be bad. Would that bad thing be countered by a resurgence of "lower rated" player interest in the game? In the short term, perhaps, but in the longer view, no, because the retirement of the best players would continue to be an unresolved issue.
So, since I read earlier that Dweebo is looking at addressing the P1 advantage, I say to the reds- let the leaderboard encourage more players to play more and hope that the P1 advantage will get addressed in a way that will satisfy you.
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
