Re: Re: Owls and Voles --- Rankings

There is prior art for an ELO-inspired rating system for Diplomacy - the
JDPR. The advantage of such a system is that it does not reward players for
simply playing more games. They have to play well to improve ratings rather
than joining as many games as they can and sticking with the ones where
they have good starts.

Reliability is necessarily separate from ability. On the DPJudge, the
absence of a reliability metric was a design decision by Manus - not an
oversight. On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog. Someone can scrap
an old identity anytime and start over so it's best not to penalize those
who would respect the rules. For voles, that means implementing a manual
blacklist if that's what's wanted.

Chris
--
"Nothing says, 'I love you,' like 200 feet of parachute cord and a cargo
net."
   - Fred, Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated


On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:23 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>      I have been following the discussion regarding ratings in the group.
> I have only ever played in two Owls games (Owls_33 and Owls_Kafka), and was
> never invited back, so I suppose I am as disinterested an observer as
> anyone.  There do need to be to sets of rankings, one for dependability,
> and one for results.  The main problem with the 'results' scoring systems I
> have seen is that they inevitably affect the style of play.  My suggestion
> for a won-lost scoring system is that a solo gets 2 points, and a two-way
> draw gets 1 point for each player.  That's it.  Any other result is a loss
> for everyone, with no points awarded.  That gives you a Won-Lost-Draw
> record.  The ranking system should sort players by total points earned,
> with most wins as a tie-breaker, and least losses as a second-tier
> tie-breaker.
>
>     All this, of course, is presented on an 'IMHO' basis.  The syntax and
> details of the DPJudge system are needlessly primitive, and I much prefer
> the 'Bounced' interface.  I have seen comments to the effect of 'we don't
> just want a bounced-type system'.  My question is, 'Why not?'  It is a
> user-friendly interface.  I think that a similar system, with a simplified
> ranking system, would be a great improvement.
>
>
>
> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
> Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
> - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>  I also agree with Eric's assessment and think OWLS to VOLES scoring will
> work well.  Items like communication and roleplaying are too subjective and
> belong in a subsequent class of games.
>
> I believe a resignation should not be punished because a player may have a
> very good reason to resign a game due to personal commitments, protracted
> or stalled game, moving cities, changing jobs, etc.  A player that contacts
> the GM and explains his need to resign should not be punished.  I have had
> to do it on rare occasion in protracted games due to military moves and the
> like.  Abandoned powers are another matter.  Abandonments are rude and
> childish, unless of course the person was hit by a bus or eaten by a shark;
> then it is unfortunate.
>
> Thanks again Ed.
>
> -Mark
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* kirman36 <[email protected]>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 5, 2012 6:50 AM
> *Subject:* [dpjudge] Re: Owls and Voles --- Rankings
>
>
> That sounds great. I was hoping you would stay with the old scoring system
> with only slight tweaks. I personally would be against ranking that favors
> communications. In many cases that would force peoples hands. Sometimes
> saying nothing is more and other times you know you simply will be giving
> up info, no matter what you say. I do agree that players that quit games
> should pay a price. Real life happens and people need to quit at points.
> But time and time again I have felt players quit for bad reasons. Such
> as... they are losing, people will not work with them the way they want,
> Such and such power will not talk too me. Anyway I would be in favor of
> some kind of harsh score adjustment or even a sitting out time for players
> that quit games over and over. Anyway thanks for taking over Edward, just
> throwing in my 2 cents. Sounds like you got it handled.
>
> Eric Kirwan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>