Comments or Questions on the Classicists

[raphtown]

If you have a question or minor comment, feel free to post here. Major suggestions should have their own thread.

[richkarna]

Who is allowed to create a game ? Does it have to be anon.?

[echotwo]

Who is allowed to create a game ?

Anyone.

Does it have to be anon.?

No.

[Trustworthy8818]

I'm sorry that I cannot make any games for this group yet; I will as soon as I get my premium membership and have the ability to play more games. I would be more active if that was the case.

[SidneyKidney]

I cant find the appropriate thread to put this in and i'm not sure if I should PM raphtown or someone else instead but I would like to express an interest in becoming a classicist.

However rather annoyingly I currently do not qualify. Whilst I return over 99% orders and have over 50 games completed (which qualifies me for platinum membership) I however have a surrender rate of

16%

. This is because when I first joined I would get annoyed at games i'd be losing at and surrender them to start a new one because I wasnt premium. This was a couple of years back before most of you were part of playdip!

I dont even qualify for bronze because 3 games back I was acting as mentor for a game which I had stupidly ranked and towards the end it had been agreed that I would leave to allow someone else to take over.

Dang.

[raphtown]

Yikes. Another piece of evidence that the current surrender rate system is flawed... Anyone have any idea how we can work around this?

[AndyCooke]

Yikes. Another piece of evidence that the current surrender rate system is flawed... Anyone have any idea how we can work around this?

I'd point to my post in the "All Classicists are equal" thread as partially relevant:
viewtopic.php?f=118&t=14869&start=10#p198903

We're looking for experience, reliability, respect and humility.
I'd suggest that:

-T he reliability criteria be that for bronze (with any exemptions applied for directly to you - I'd suggest that someone leaving a game in order to allow someone else to take over as per SidneyKidney's case be an acceptable exemption).
- All players to be probationary (1 strike) until they've completed 1/2/3/4/5 (delete as seen fit) Classicist games. Then full members with two strikes.
- Tiered qualifications (bronze through p[latinum) to go only for experience. There could be a debate as to whether Classicist experience (eg x number of Classicist games played) should override raw experience.

[super_dipsy]

I wonder whether perhaps we should be more rather than less flexible. I would be prepared to give almost anyone the benefit of the doubt, because in the end if someone fulfils his obligations then that is fine, and if someone does not then we find out pretty quick and that person is removed from the group. The only risk is we might accidentally add someone who is unreliable, but it will only affect one or maybe two games in all likelihood before we find out.

[QueenOfHearts]

I like Andy's post.

IF we make each player a probationary member at first (IF and only if) they don't meet the bronze requirements, that they must complete 3 Classicists games with a maximum of (say) 3 NMRs, and no surrenders. they must also complete 2 other non Classicist games with no surrenders and maximum of 2 NMRs.

Or something of the sort

[SidneyKidney]

This all seems very complicated. Perhaps it would be easier for me to just leave this be for now?