Ranking Of Master B

[Spock]

Hi Toma!

The rules are not clear!
Especially not point 3) (Direct Match against each other, if same  number of
wins ) is not clear for me.
You wrote in your annoucement: Then between the 4, I have dorbel and Sakis with 2 win ans 1  loss
and tryout and spock with 2 loss and 1 win.
Ok this is point 3)....but you also wrote: So I put dorbel and Sakis ahead  
and beetween this 2 players dorbel won over sakis and spock vs tryout.
What is this...point 3a)??
This is not what the rules state!
At least here you have to use point 4) but anyway...I think point 3)  is not
applicable in this case (4 players at the same score)...so there must be  a
better way to find out the best of them.

Kindest regards

Spock

[Tomawaky]

Hello ;-)

Point 3 (Direct Match against each other, if same number of wins) is very clear for me even if not put in detail in my rules.

I took all the players with the same number of point and look only the results if there was a league between us

so I have the results below
          dorbel sakis tryout spock win lost pts
dorbel     -        W      L        W    2    1     7pts
sakis       L        -       W       W    2    1     7pts
tryout     W        L       -        L     1    2     5pts
spock      L        L       W       -     1    2     5pts

and then i look the match vs the 2 better.


Believe me, we worked hard to find the better solution to have rules for all case and not have any discussion and I thanks "cht" who helped me a lot for this.
I think the rules are clear and until now I found always a solution to decide between players

[tryout]

Here is my point of view. I think Spock's question is justified.

As I wrote already on the mailing list according to rules number 1) and 2) the four players above are level. Rule 3) says "Direct Match against each other, if same number of wins". Since it's formulated in singular my understanding of it was that it's not applicable to more than 2 players.

Furthermore, while your laid out scheme does find a ranking, it comes a bit unexpected. I had thought something not trivial should be described beforehand.

Whether it's the best or fairest is questionable, though. In the case at hand e.g. I beat dorbel; so why should he be ahead of me if the direct match counts?
(I had taken another example, but the match between dorbel and me is the only one which defies the ranking you came up with. Also, I guess I need to point this out, I'm in no way saying I should be 2nd. Anybody thinking otherwise would just be plain silly.)

Btw, if rule 4) was applied, sakis would be 2nd.

[Tomawaky]

Rules 4 would have been applied in case all of you were at, for exemple, 2wins 1loss.
It has already happen and already applied.

If possible I do not use this rules that is for me more unfair that a compare between match played vs all players of the same rank.

[adamosad]

Hi Tomawaky,

Maybe you should add more details or/and your example above to fibsleagammonââ,¬â,,¢s rule page. This will help you to avoid similar situations (confusion) in the future.  

[dorbel]

Tomawaky's method of dividing a four way tie is probably the fairest that can be devised, but the rules as published would not actually lead anybody to deduce that this is how it would be done. As ties are the exception rather than the rule, it should be spelled out clearly. Perhaps somebody with English as a first language (and who ideally speaks French fluently) should assist Tomawaky to redraft some of these paragraphs. I am the beneficiary of the rule this time, but I seem to remember at least one occasion in the past when I expectd to be in the playoffs, but didn't make it.  

[Spock]

Toma, in my opinion it is not possible to rule like that. You applied rule 3) twice!! What you did is not described anywhere! When rule 3) like it's written doesn't come to a distinguishable result the next rule has to be applied.
So far nobody, except tryout, has given any reasons for their opinions or action. Could you please give arguments and not say you put some effort in it or you believe it's ok? I also think that rule 3) is unfair. The procedure just ignores parts of the match results. It's not clear to me why some matches should be more important than others.

Kindest regards

Spock

[Tomawaky]

Tomawaky's method of dividing a four way tie is probably the fairest that can be devised, but the rules as published would not actually lead anybody to deduce that this is how it would be done. As ties are the exception rather than the rule, it should be spelled out clearly. Perhaps somebody with English as a first language (and who ideally speaks French fluently) should assist Tomawaky to redraft some of these paragraphs. I am the beneficiary of the rule this time, but I seem to remember at least one occasion in the past when I expectd to be in the playoffs, but didn't make it.

Yes help would be appreciate

[Tomawaky]

Toma, in my opinion it is not possible to rule like that. You applied rule 3) twice!! What you did is not described anywhere! When rule 3) like it's written doesn't come to a distinguishable result the next rule has to be applied.
So far nobody, except tryout, has given any reasons for their opinions or action. Could you please give arguments and not say you put some effort in it or you believe it's ok? I also think that rule 3) is unfair. The procedure just ignores parts of the match results. It's not clear to me why some matches should be more important than others.

Kindest regards

Spock

Yes rule 3 is not described in detail even if for me it's very clear and I has always done like this. But If you or somebody else can help me to put in word. I would appreciate much.

Why do you find rules 3 unfair ?
When people have same number of points I must chose a way to distinguish them.
I have chosen to do it by just look matches played between players with the same number of points. It's my choice an we took time with some other to find the best way. This was the best rules we have found at the time.
Now if you consider it is not, can you explain why and what can be done better ?

[tryout]

Why do you find rules 3 unfair ?

You don't take all matches equally into account. By splitting the procedure in 2 steps some matches receive more value than others. This can't be right.

Once more in detail and repeating my question (see my posting above): You're looking at "direct matches". How could it be justified that player A, that lost to player B, is ahead of player B?
In the current case you simply disregard one match result.

[Tomawaky]

It is incredible all the same people who wish to criticize and see the bad points without being able to propose solutions or improvements.

The trouble is that when we take all matches equally into account, the players are equal with the same number of points.
And for your second point tryout it can happen that the first of a league don't win all of his matches and then can we consider that if he only lost 1 match the player who bet him must be ranking over him ?

Don't be silly. Stop making the child Tryout.
That's another time ridiculous.

[socksey]

I think the suggestion that someone who speaks both English and French fluently help reword the rules to be more precise is the way to go.  The more I read of the rules and the comments, the more confused I am becoming.  

socksey



"Will the Minister explain how it is that an inedible tinned food can become an unsolicited email, bearing in mind that some of us wish to be protected from having an email?" ââ,¬â€œ Lord Renton, British MP, during debate on restricting spam e-mails 5/22/03

[tryout]

Don't be silly. Stop making the child Tryout.
That's another time ridiculous.

HUH??

First you ignore all presented arguments in this thread, don't give any reasons yourself and now you're even insulting! Go figure.

It is incredible all the same people who wish to criticize and see the bad points without being able to propose solutions or improvements.

You couldn't go lower than that, could you? If I may help your memory it's me who has helped you immensely with FLG in various ways.

The trouble is that when we take all matches equally into account, the players are equal with the same number of points.
And for your second point tryout it can happen that the first of a league don't win all of his matches and then can we consider that if he only lost 1 match the player who bet him must be ranking over him ?

Apparently, you didn't (want to?) understand anything I wrote.

First of all, it's a must with any ranking rules that all matches are treated equally. How can you say there's trouble with this?

This can of course lead to ties between players. We obviously have such a case.

That "[if] the first of a league lost 1 match the player who bet him must be ranking over him" is spectacular nonsense.
It should be incredibly obvious that we're not talking about a normal ranking situation where one player has more points than another!

We are talking about a tie resolution, in which players by definition have the same number of points. Else it wouldn't be a tie.

And rule 3) specifically talks about "direct match"(es). In this light, and only in this since the preceding ranking rules didn't come to a distinguishable result, I asked "How could it be justified that player A, that lost to player B, is ahead of player B?".
Again: because the players have the same number of points and the rule that is in effect is rule 3) and it compares "direct match"(es). If we only look at the direct match now because the rules before were not enough, how could this be?

[Tomawaky]

I give up.
My english is certainly too poor So I have the impression that we do not speak same the language. And the last exchanges with you let me think that it would never be possible.

Yes you helped me in the past, but as you say it is the past.
And it was maybe immensely for you ..... but another time I prefer to think that my english is too bad to understand what you try to tell.


Is any body else to have a constructive discussion ?

either to find a better resolution tie

or to put in good english words the actual rules that I explained

[socksey]

I asked "How could it be justified that player A, that lost to player B, is ahead of player B?".

This seems reasonable to me.  I'm still trying to understand it all, but if all was tied to that point, it would seem that player B would have to have the edge.

We still have no volunteer who speaks both French and English fluently.  Can anyone volunteer to help?  Spock, is your French as good as your English?

Don't give up, Tom!  We will find a solution.  

socksey



"A woman broke up with me and sent me pictures of her and her new boyfriend in bed together. Solution? I sent them to her dad." - Christopher Case  

[Tomawaky]

I asked "How could it be justified that player A, that lost to player B, is ahead of player B?".

This seems reasonable to me.  I'm still trying to understand it all, but if all was tied to that point, it would seem that player B would have to have the edge.

Tryout tries to play with the words, by proposing a formula with 2 unknown factors to us, whereas my problem comprises 4 of them.

And this problem have been exposed before : 4 players with same number of win, of loss and Points in the same division.

To resolve the Tie I have choosen to extract the 4 players with the same number of point and look only the results between them all

so I have the results below which was not so clear in text mode

--------|-dorbel---sakis---tryout---spock-|--win---lost---pts
--------|--------------------------------------|---------------------
dorbel-|------------W--------L--------W----|--2-----1----7pts
sakis--|----L-----------------W-------W----|--2------1----7pts
tryout-|---W-------L------------------L-----|--1------2----5pts
spock-|----L-------L---------W-------------|--1------2----5pts

(W for win, L for loss)

So now I can distinguish theme all cause dorbel and sakis have 7pts (3+3+1)
- dorbel win over sakis and spock
-sakis win over tryout and spock

And tryout and spock only 5Pts (3+1+1)
- tryout only win over dorbel
- spock only win over tryout

And for the match between dorbel and sakis, this is dorbel who win.

So dorbel his ranking on top.

[socksey]

Thanks, Tom, I think I have it now, and I think you are right.  

socksey



"Relationships are hard. It's like a full-time job, and we should treat it like one. If your boyfriend or girlfriend wants to leave you, they should give you two weeks' notice. There should be severance pay, and before they leave you, they should have to find you a temp." - Bob Ettinger

[adamosad]

Let me give a small summary for Socksey.

These 4 people had the same points. So only one could take the second place and went to league semi-finals. As long as all had the same wins (Rule 2), the next rule could show us who would advance to semi-finals.

Rule 3 (As it is shown in fibsleagammon page):  Direct Match against each other, if same number of wins.

The disagreement of Tomawaky and Tryout is for this rule. I understand the process that Tomawaky describe above and I think it is fair BUT Tryout is right that this process is not like as it is described. That is why I suggest to Tomawaky to extend this rule with more info and examples to give a clear picture to the players.

According to Tryout "The direct match" words are only for 2 players. So the next rule (4) had to give us the winner. (I do not understand rule 4 completely. Tomawaky can you give me an example about this rule?)

So Tomawaky have to do one of those: 1) Leave the rule as it is and follow the Tryout process or 2) Modify the rule to make it clear to the public what that rule actually means and continue using the method that he describe above.

Suggestion for Tomawaky (modification of the rule): 3)  If same number of wins, Direct Match against each other (in case of 2 players) and sub-league ranking for that players only according to rules 1 and 2  (in case of more than 2 players). Socksey can you make this rule better now that you understand the point?

[socksey]

3) Direct Match against each other, if same number of wins

For this one, I might say, "3) In the case of a tie with 2 players, the winner will be determined by the match already played between the two.  No final match will be played."

4) Accumulated score of defeated players (for each player, sum the scores of the players he won against), if among three or more players, direct matches equal out (e.g. 1-1, or 2-2,...).

For this one, I might say, "4) In the case of a tie with multiple players, the direct matches already played against each other will count 3 point for win and 1 point for loss to determine the highest 2 players and then the league match already played between those 2 players will determine the league champion."

5) Direct Match of best 2-ply scores-players, if same accumulated score.

Rule 5 can be eliminated.

I must add that I like playoffs for players with same points, but that would be more time consuming and a bit more complicated than this method.

socksey



"I'm a psychic amnesiac. I know in advance what I'll forget." - Michael McShane

[Tomawaky]

3) Direct Match against each other, if same number of wins

For this one, I might say, "3) In the case of a tie with 2 players, the winner will be determined by the match already played between the two.  No final match will be played."

I like adamosad rules posted upper for 3)
in case of 2 players : If same number of wins, Direct Match against each other
in case of more than 2 players sub-league ranking for that players only according to rules 1 and 2
( => And then direct match between the 2 last top players if necessary)

4) Accumulated score of defeated players (for each player, sum the scores of the players he won against), if among three or more players, direct matches equal out (e.g. 1-1, or 2-2,...).

For this one, I might say, "4) In the case of a tie with multiple players, the direct matches already played against each other will count 3 point for win and 1 point for loss to determine the highest 2 players and then the league match already played between those 2 players will determine the league champion."

In case we can distinguish players with rule 3 then use the rule 4
Rules 4) Accumulated score of defeated players (for each player, sum the scores of the players he won against), if among three or more players, direct matches equal out (e.g. 1-1, or 2-2,...).

This is completly different.
I mean with this rules that all equal players get points (points league standing) of each players he beat during the league. Then I compare all sum and define the ranking.

With a Example with 5 players
A line = Player Result vs A, vs B, vs C, vs D, vs E, Win, Loss, Points

A : - W L W W 3 1 10
B : L - W W L 2 2 8
C : W L - L W 2 2 8
D : L L W - W 2 2 8
E : L W L L - 1 3 5

(I agree, normally I don't do the rules 4 in that case cause B win over the 2 others C & D, but it is just to explain the point describe upper)

Then B get 8pts for C and 8Pts for D = 16Pts
C get 10 pts for A and 5 Pts for E = 15Pts
D get 8 Pts for C and 5 Pts for E = 13 Pts

(It's in the same spirit as swiss rules)

5) Direct Match of best 2-ply scores-players, if same accumulated score.

Rule 5 can be eliminated.

I must add that I like playoffs for players with same points, but that would be more time consuming and a bit more complicated than this method.

Rules 5 is always usefull in case we have to distinguish only 2 players in any case.

Is it more clear now for every body. Fell free to correct this add comments ;-)
But you can see now that the rules become complicate and players who look at the rules for the first time can be scared  
So If I add this to my rules Page, I will certainly let the summarize rules and add a link for the complete

[adamosad]

A : - W L W W 3 1 10
B : L - W W L 2 2 8
C : W L - L W 2 2 8
D : L L W - W 2 2 8
E : L W L L - 1 3 5

Now I understand it  

Is it more clear now for every body. Fell free to correct this add comments ;-)
But you can see now that the rules become complicate and players who look at the rules for the first time can be scared
So If I add this to my rules Page, I will certainly let the summarize rules and add a link for the complete

Good idea. Just add a link for the completed rule near each summarized rule with the examples you gave us above. This will help a lot!!!  

[adamosad]

Let me see if I understand completely the whole package of rules. If not, please correct me.

Consider the same score with the 4 players above but the following sub-league:

dorbel - W L W 2 1 7pts
sakis   L - W W 2 1 7pts
tryout W L - W 2 1 7pts
spock  L L L -   0 3 3pts

Here I only change the the tryout vs spock match. I assume that tryout won that match. In addition Spock won another independant match (that he actually lost) and Tryout lost another independant match (that he actually won). The second assumpion is just to leave the all 4 players with the same ranking as before according to rules 1 and 2.

Then here Spock is out and we make a sub-league between the 3. All 3 are equal so rule 4 must give us the winner.

dorbel - W L  1 1 4pts
sakis   L - W  1 1 4pts
tryout W L -  1 1 4pts

So rule 4 is based on "the best player is the one that beats the best players"

So if 1 players have the highest accumulate score, he wins.
If 2 players have the same (highest) accumulate score, according to rule 5 the winner is the one that wins the direct match between then.
If all have the same accumulate score, Tomawaky must find a solution(rule 6)...

[Tomawaky]

 :eeeek:
 :agree:  :beer:  :ohmaster:    

YOU GOT IT MY FRIEND[/b][/size]

[tansley]

Not an easy problem to solve.

Well done Tomawaky, and remember, however troublesome it can be at times, we are very grateful for FLG.  It is a fantastic addition to FIBS.

On another note, is it true that you have banned tryout from this forum?
I didn't see him say anything in this thread that seemed rude or insulting.
I was under the impression that tryout had helped you with various aspects of FLG in the past.
It seems a shame if this ban is the only possible course of action for you.    

[Hardy_whv]

Not an easy problem to solve.
On another note, is it true that you have banned tryout from this forum?
I didn't see him say anything in this thread that seemed rude or insulting.
I was under the impression that tryout had helped you with various aspects of FLG in the past.
(

Well, I must admit, tryout seems to get rude from time to time and would definetively NOT make it into the diplomatic corps ...  

But knowing him in person I know, that he is actually very nice and doesn't mean it rude for sure.

So I do agree, that his ban from this forum should be lifted. He did quite a lot of good thinks for the FIBS League in the past and will continue in the future.


Hardy  

[Tomawaky]

On another note, is it true that you have banned tryout from this forum?
I didn't see him say anything in this thread that seemed rude or insulting.
I was under the impression that tryout had helped you with various aspects of FLG in the past.
It seems a shame if this ban is the only possible course of action for you.  

Do you really think I am the kind of man who can ban tryout from somewhere.
I have just said that I will give up the discussion with him cause he stay always on this first point and don't try to bring anything else to improve.... He found rules 3 unfair and didn't say why or how can it be improve. I prefer to go ahead.
And the two last topics where we argue both him and I, I have found him with the same tone which I do not appreciate, especially the last time. I don't know what he try to do but he gets me on my nerves.

But I do not gag him at all and have no reason to do it.
And you can see that now we stop with tryout, this topic has gone in a better way (all at least in the sense that I appreciate)

So don't speak before knowing the truth and I have no shame on me.

Yes I repeat, he helped me and I already thanks him many times for that. But now I waste my time with him.

You can see that I always say what I think and always do what I say (At least I try).
I am not the kind to be nourished of insipid things

[Tomawaky]

So I do agree, that his ban from this forum should be lifted. He did quite a lot of good thinks for the FIBS League in the past and will continue in the future.

Hardy  

I did not ban him and will never DO
I can't understand how you can believe this
I am not that kind of people

I don't like the ban and only use it if somebody is spaming me and for nothing else.

[Hardy_whv]

I did not ban him and will never DO
I can't understand how you can believe this

Sorry Tomawaky, must have been some misunderstanding. I heard it from different people, therefore believed in it's truth. So please, just disregard my posting.

And always remember: "I feel good da da da da da da da.........i knew that i would now........."  


Hardy    

[Tomawaky]

How easy bad rumors are going on fibs ;-)

[Spock]

The new formulation of rule 3) is acceptable and probably a good solution. But only for future seasons. For the last season it would be unfair, though, to apply this procedure, since it's a completely different thing than what is stated in the rules. Instead, rule 4) needs to be applied.

But....Toma why did you insult tryout? He didn`t provoke you in no way so stick to facts! If you can`t anwser to his questions...at least be polite!
I advise you to apologise to tryout.

Regards

Spock

[Tomawaky]

The new formulation of rule 3) is acceptable and probably a good solution. But only for future seasons. For the last season it would be unfair, though, to apply this procedure, since it's a completely different thing than what is stated in the rules. Instead, rule 4) needs to be applied.

But....Toma why did you insult tryout? He didn`t provoke you in no way so stick to facts! If you can`t anwser to his questions...at least be polite!
I advise you to apologise to tryout.

Regards

Spock

The rules was maybe not complete in detail but have always been as it has been explained just above

I have nothing to apologise. Tryout since 2 post is playing on words and do nothing to improve there but only make some confuse.
As I said, I do not know what he try to do but but it is not in my understanding in good spirit.

[Tomawaky]

And for everybody.

Those who don't apreciate my league can go elsewhere.

I have not created it to waste my time with those kind of discussion, remember players to play there match, make the referee between 2 players when there are not agree etc etc etc....
And these time I loose my time with all of this and can't play anymore.

Fell free to go elsewhere if you want to argue.

Here is just for fun and playing

[tryout]

Interesting that now I'm able to post here again. When I tried the last time about 3 days ago I couldn't. At first I thought that I entered the wrong password. I also checked that I have cookies and Javascript enabled in the browser. But everything was fine, which was also confirmed by the fact that I could indeed log in to FibsBoard and had access to the settings ("my controls"). But nevertheless, when I tried to post a reply I got "You don't have permissions".

That tomawaky denies to have banned me is puzzling. Who else was it then? He does have moderator status for this flg forum and apart from him only 2 more people have the necessary permissions.

It also seems to fall very much in line with the rest of his actions. He ignored all my arguments, tried to ridicule my point of view, then even insulted me and finally prove his lack of integrity by extremely low comments about my help for him.

I have just said that I will give up the discussion with him cause he stay always on this first point and don't try to bring anything else to improve.... He found rules 3 unfair and didn't say why or how can it be improve. I prefer to go ahead.

This blindness is really hard to believe. I gave lots of reasons, just scroll up. I've also said that therefore rule 4) should be applied.
What more constructiveness does tomawaky expect?
If he ignores every single argument and states how low he thinks of all that I've helped him, I certainly won't do his job yet another time, and formulate new rules.


Btw, congrats adamosad for working out the rules and also listening to all arguments!

And the two last topics where we argue both him and I, I have found him with the same tone which I do not appreciate, especially the last time. I don't know what he try to do but he gets me on my nerves.

Yeah, giving arguments and reasons gets on his nerves...

And you can see that now we stop with tryout, this topic has gone in a better way

Good grief, what a convincing proof. With me it might have taken the same or even better way, especially if the TD in charge hadn't ignored all arguments.
What is tomawaky actually up to? Only trying to discredit me? Can't he even stop his personal attacks even in the time when I didn't/couldn't write anything?

The new formulation of rule 3) is acceptable and probably a good solution. But only for future seasons. For the last season it would be unfair, though, to apply this procedure, since it's a completely different thing than what is stated in the rules. Instead, rule 4) needs to be applied.

I share this opinion. The new rules can be worked with, but not retroactively for the last season since it's far from anything written in the rules.

But....Toma why did you insult tryout? He didn`t provoke you in no way so stick to facts! If you can`t anwser to his questions...at least be polite!
I advise you to apologise to tryout.

I have nothing to apologise. Tryout since 2 post is playing on words and do nothing to improve there but only make some confuse.

Keep on being ignorant and put the blame on others. You don't even recognise your insults?

And for everybody.
Those who don't apreciate my league can go elsewhere.
I have not created it to waste my time with those kind of discussion, remember players to play there match, make the referee between 2 players when there are not agree etc etc etc....
And these time I loose my time with all of this and can't play anymore.
Fell free to go elsewhere if you want to argue.
Here is just for fun and playing

What is a tournament director good for if s(he) is afraid of discussions? If s(he) thinks the organising just happens by itself and all players always do their best effort. If s(he) doesn't want to resolve player disputes.
Sure, it would be very nice if everything went smoothly. Discussions and disputes do happen, players do forget things or can't arrange matches and lots more. Face the reality, a TD job is work.


(I apologise to any reader who feels this posting may not be overly polite. If this one isn't, well, I'm quite fed up with tomawaky's behaviour.)

[Tomawaky]

So I know now where you want to come Tryout.
Best luck.

I will and don't want never do anything else with you. Now that I know how you are.

Everyone will believe what he want on that topic.
Read it from the beginning and make your opinion.
I will never post any more on the subjet cause for me all have been said.

[Tomawaky]

and for those who are interesting look at this topic too
http://www.fibsboard.com/index.php?showtopic=1019

[adamosad]

Btw, congrats adamosad for working out the rules and also listening to all arguments!

Hi Tryout,

As I mention before as the rule was not very clear two things could take place (The following is a quote of one of my previews posts):

So Tomawaky have to do one of those: 1) Leave the rule as it is and follow the Tryout process or 2) Modify the rule to make it clear to the public what that rule actually means and continue using the method that he describe above.

As long as Tomawaky wanted to use his sub-league rule, I try to find a modification of the rule that it would help him in the long run (In future cases as Spock said above.) I think I was successful. I only wanted to help the tourney director and find a rule that it will not confuse the public. If Tomawaky chose the option 1, I would not say anything about the second as I don't want to make things even more complicate.

In addition, I think that only the TD of a specific tourney has the power to change rules. The others can make suggestions and the TD will decide to accept them or not. For example, I suggest that you could enter a different kind of team tourney that it is easier to run in your site but this remain only an idea. Another example: Some weeks ago you suggested me to modify Rating Championship rules and make them (ratings) 1100-1500 for group A, 1501-1750 for group B and 1751+ for group C. That was a veryyyyy good idea. I have troubles every time I run a tourney for group C as few people (non-bots) have rating more than 1801 and even fewer are online the time I run the tourney. With your idea, I could enlarge the tourney demand for that group. I was between this modification and the rule I enter now (if less than 4 players enter the tourney, the tourney will be cancelled and the players that were in will be awarded with 2 points). If the current system is not successful, I will use your idea. My point here is that ONLY the TD can accept or not an idea and enter it in his/her tourney. All the others can only give suggestion and that's what I did above after I did hear ALL arguments and after I saw which choice the TD had made.

As for the current case (for this session) maybe you have a point as the rule was not very clear but only the TD can decide what he will do. As for all of us we can give advices and suggestions that maybe help the TD in the short or in the long run period of his tourneyââ,¬Â¦....

[tryout]

Hi adamosad,

I do think that the new rules work. The term "sub-league" also defines it rather well.

I also agree that of course only the TD can set or alter any rules. But like you just said others can suggest or request changes. Whether they are accepted is another question.

During such a discussion it's advisable to support or defend one's opinion with good arguments. And it's also normal to voice contrary opinions or disagreement.

[socksey]

I want to thank Tomawaky for the league and for all the work he has put into it.  

People often forget that TD's have other lives and Fibs tournaments and leagues are not their only responsibility.  Too much discussion can be very frustrating and time consuming, especially if the tone becomes hostile.

During such a discussion it's advisable to support or defend one's opinion with good arguments. And it's also normal to voice contrary opinions or disagreement.

Please remember that this is a volunteer position and therefore should not be open to verbal abuse.  The TD has the final say and he/she is not obligated to listen to anyone.  Tomawaky has listened, discussed, and has made his choice.

socksey



"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority." - E. B. White


 

[Tomawaky]

Here are The more Detail Rules for Fibs League Ranking.

Feel free to add comment or give me more appropriate words if my english is not perfect.

[adamosad]

Perfect job Tomawaky  

Just another (small suggestion): For rule 4 you maybe want to insert another table with the normal order before you sort the players by their ranking. For example I can understand that Backwoods took 8 points from Ritagnu but what about the 19, 18 and 16. I know that this is not the main point of the rule but it maybe confuse the readers.

Continue the GREAT work !!!!  

[Tomawaky]

For example I can understand that Backwoods took 8 points from Ritagnu but what about the 19, 18 and 16.

So It seems that it is not enough detailed again  

If I take backwoods players with index number 8
he win over players with index 0, 1, 3, 4, 5

player 0 is adamosad with 16pts
player 1 is ritagru with 8pts
player 3 is chopops with 19pts
player 4 is adrian with 20pts
player 5 is sunray with 26pts

and a total of 89 pts

Nedd I add this explanation ?

[socksey]

I couldn't be more confused.  

Tell you what, you guys just continue to duke it out and I'll let you decide who wins.  

socksey



"I'm half-Italian and half-Polish. So I'm always putting a hit out on myself." - Judy Tenuta

[adamosad]

I thought that it is better if you add the order of the 12 players. Just player XXX is XXX. e.g ritagnu is 2nd or 1st in your example. So all readers will calculate by themselves the sum of all 3 players and find not only the Backwoods points ( These points are described perfectly above) but the points of the other 2 players too and compare them to see that backwoods indeed won there.

But if you think that this info is useless you can let them out It was just a suggestion  

Tell you what, you guys just continue to duke it out and I'll let you decide who wins.

socksey