No, mouse, more options are not always better. They alter the way the game is played and therefore distort both points and ratings because of people playing for strong seconds even in the draw. The *only* way to have consistent ratings and points is to choose *one* style, whatever it may be, and stick with it.
But the same logic applies to not having variants because variants affect both points and ratings in how many players are in a game. Solo a WWIV game and you rock the points and ratings. Solo an Ancient Med (5 players) and you don't even get as much as you would out of a classic game.
Likewise, allowing games to end early and granting solos with more or less than the usual 50%+1 SCs distorts the scores and ratings.
So, unfortunately, points and ratings are destined to be distorted.
Given this fact, the decision must then be made about *how much* distortion we wish to have. If we wish to reduce it while keeping the variant nature of the site alive, then eliminating PPSC and having draws be an even split would eliminate that aspect of the distortion by following the spirit of the inventor/author.
But here is where I am going to propose something I consider logical yet possibly controversial...
How about we allow all these options but only rate games that use the rulebook standards of "full game, 50% +1 SCs solo, and WTA/DSS points" as rated games. Additionally, allow a scenario to always be unrated like Rinascimento. That way ratings would more accurately reflect classic with the only distortion being a result of the number of players in the various scenarios and any unintentional and unaccounted for scenario imbalances.
OK, that was more like my 2 bucks than 2 cents...