Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Games?

An informal group of proven reliable players attempting to avoid games spoiled by missed orders.

Moderators: Fatmo, JonS, Buachaille

Re: Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Ga

Postby gareth66 » 28 Aug 2014, 22:08

The discussion is possibly turning into something different from the original post.

When we constituted the Aspiring membership category, the agreed criteria were that:

If a player has played at least one but less than 5 rank/norank games, he is required to play ONE game without surrendering. If a player has played 5 or more (and therefore in consideration for, but ineligible for, Bronze) then he is required to have had no surrenders in the last 4 games.

The question posed was, should the "less than 4 / 5 or more" distinction include games surrendered from or not.

But the discussion has turned into a more fundamental questioning of the criteria, with the suggestion that if a player has ANY surrenders he should not be admitted into the Aspiring Classicists. This was never the agreed concept behind this tier, and is a much more radical suggested change that would need to go to a poll to change the constitution. All that I was asking about originally was a clarification of what people think the criteria as currently stated should be.
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Ga

Postby sinnybee » 28 Aug 2014, 22:47

gareth66 wrote:The discussion is possibly turning into something different from the original post.

When we constituted the Aspiring membership category, the agreed criteria were that:

If a player has played at least one but less than 5 rank/norank games, he is required to play ONE game without surrendering. If a player has played 5 or more (and therefore in consideration for, but ineligible for, Bronze) then he is required to have had no surrenders in the last 4 games.

The question posed was, should the "less than 4 / 5 or more" distinction include games surrendered from or not.

But the discussion has turned into a more fundamental questioning of the criteria, with the suggestion that if a player has ANY surrenders he should not be admitted into the Aspiring Classicists. This was never the agreed concept behind this tier, and is a much more radical suggested change that would need to go to a poll to change the constitution. All that I was asking about originally was a clarification of what people think the criteria as currently stated should be.

If all you want is an answer to your question posed, then just look and see what we wrote!
I did it for you and looked through all the posts again.
Everyone on the following list prefers interpretation A to interpretation B, which would make it so that someone with 5 surrenders and one non-surrendered finished game could not make it into the Classicists.
gareth66 wrote:On interpretation A, 6 games finished that the player was involved in, he would come into the "5 or more" category which requires a run of 4 games without surrender before admission.

Mortiferus Rosa
Gavrilo Princip
sinnybee
jakofipa
AlmanMEin
Bwlvych

No one voted for interpretation B over interpretation A.

By my count, the vote is 6 to 0, with us unanimously believing that surrendered games do count (toward the count of finished games).

If you were most concerned about getting an answer of A or B, you could have made a poll, but you didn't. So, yes, we may share if we're a bit flabbergasted that it could even be conceivable that someone with 5 surrenders and 1 non-surrendered finished game could be good enough to make it into the Classicists. I mean, seriously?? If someone with 5 surrenders and 1 non-surrendered finished game could be good enough to make it into the Classicists, then of what value is the Classicists at all? I mean there's maybe 0.05% of players on this site with a record worse than that. I don't want to be part of a group that includes someone with that kind of record.
My main opinion was that they should not be allowed into the Classicists, which means interpretation A, that they need to meet the bronze rules to make it into the Classicists.

Are we good here?
Gold Classicist since 1-11-11
FT Asst GM of 35 player WWIV Aug 2011-Feb 2012
#1 ranked player of playdip early 2013
4th highest forum karma count at Apr 2013 ending (behind Craw, Dipsy, and Rick)
Tournament Director of the 31 game PDVT Feb-Dec 2014, the first playdip tourney with over 100 sign-ups
User avatar
sinnybee
 
Posts: 6087
Joined: 03 Sep 2010, 07:01
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1332)
All-game rating: (1467)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Ga

Postby gareth66 » 29 Aug 2014, 00:05

That was what we all agreed sinny. Look back at the discussion.
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Ga

Postby sinnybee » 29 Aug 2014, 00:42

gareth66 wrote:That was what we all agreed sinny. Look back at the discussion.

That's what I just said--we all agree:
sinnybee wrote:By my count, the vote is 6 to 0, with us unanimously believing that surrendered games do count (toward the count of finished games).

What's the problem?
Gold Classicist since 1-11-11
FT Asst GM of 35 player WWIV Aug 2011-Feb 2012
#1 ranked player of playdip early 2013
4th highest forum karma count at Apr 2013 ending (behind Craw, Dipsy, and Rick)
Tournament Director of the 31 game PDVT Feb-Dec 2014, the first playdip tourney with over 100 sign-ups
User avatar
sinnybee
 
Posts: 6087
Joined: 03 Sep 2010, 07:01
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1332)
All-game rating: (1467)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Debate for Clarification: What do we mean by Finished Ga

Postby gareth66 » 29 Aug 2014, 00:56

I meant the discussion that led to the creation of the Aspiring Tier in the first place.

Anyway, tweaks made to deal with the uncontroversial bits and new poll created here viewtopic.php?f=118&t=46132.
User avatar
gareth66
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 18:09
Location: Uk (North Midlands)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1485)
All-game rating: (1638)
Timezone: GMT

Previous

Return to Classicists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests