Re: Discussion on scoring systems ...

Going through the criteria one by one:

R:  I find it difficult to imagine anyone having a serious objection to the "R" criterion.  You might consider adding some sort of appeal to the GM process for cases of extreme tragedy... like, someone was maimed & lying in a hospital, someone's immediate family suddenly died, etc.  But the basic concept is sound, regardless.

A:  The acronym seems to break down here... it could very well be that someone sends a ton of venomous e-mails, and wins many "a"micability points.  I'm on the fence about this one, and I'd like to hear more of the rationale why you think it's a positive scoring element.

C:  I'm not a fan of this one, and I'll give you an example from this past weekend why I'm not.  I was Turkey on a board where come S1902, it was extremely obvious to me that F/G were married, and were going to roll England faster than I would be able to break out of my corner, unless I did something about it.  However, being in Turkey, I couldn't directly affect events in the West.  So, I established good relationships with A/I/R, waived my build in 1902, and tried to push them into F/G before it was too late.  Sadly, R misordered frequently and A/I, while individually trusting me, didn't trust each other, so the prophecy came true and F/G both finished in excess of 10, well over stalemate lines, while I was only at 6 when the game was called.  Point being, I made the optimal strategic decision for my position, and under "C"apability scoring, I would be punished.  Note that tempo isn't just about moving one's own position forward in a vacuum... it's about moving one's position forward relative to the tempo of everyone else on the board.

E:  I think this criterion has one significant merit, and one significant cost, and that it's a matter of preference how you end up weighing them.  The merit is that it provides small powers motivation to remain active, particularly newer players; the cost is that it creates an unlevel playing field, that is to say, game 1 has more total points available than game 2.

S:  For sake of ease, preserving the same ratio, you might want to make a solo worth 68 points, and have 34 points divided on the basis of number of supply centers.  Center-based scoring is one of the least objectionable, in my experience, so I count this as a positive element.