@Devo.
"Guaroz, I didn't say get rid of a hall of reliability,"
Devonian, I didn't say that you said get rid of a hall of reliability. Why you pinpointed it, I miss. I know you didn't say it.
You said "a hall of perfect reliability will only be of interest to those who have perfect reliability" that's what I agree with you: if the "list" is not interesting, what's the point in it?
Talking about "interest", you hit the nail on the head IMHO. That's all.
Then I added some more things of mine, otherwise why typing a 9 lines post if I had nothing different to say? :)
I said that a list about the opposite end, the least reliable players, would be more interesting than the "good guys" list. And I explained why it would be interesting for more people than the other list.
I'd find it much more interesting, for example.
And, if I'm not misinterpreting their words (please correct me in case), also RUFF and Leif would find interesting a list like that.
Then I added that it's PROBABLY not a good idea. "Probably" means that I could be wrong and this is probably what you, RUFF and Leif think and are trying to say. Am I wrong? "Hall of Shame" would be a good idea for you? Yes? Ok. Fine. Peace.
Just, it looks to me that the person who is running this site doesn't want to base his action on shame and blame. And to me also it would sound a bit unfair. That's why I said it probably wouldn't be a good idea. But, yes, I could be wrong.
Now, before I explain my last 2 lines, I have to say that I forgot a step, and that's probably why you all didn't fully get what I meant.
We said that "a hall of perfect reliability will only be of interest to those who have perfect reliability". Well probably it wouldn't be of interest even to those who have perfect reliability, but this is not the point.
The point I forgot is that a larger "good guys" list where you can see that Mickey Mouse is 47th because he missed 3 out 2489 phases and Donald Duck is 71st because he missed 4 out of 2353 phases wouldn't be of any interest anyway (btw, how often do you check current "Hall of Fame" list? I'm sure you'd check Good Guys list even less often).
And frankly, IMHO, lowering the range to last x-hundreds phases played, wouldn't increase the interest in it.
So:
- "Good Guys" list isn't interesting;
- "Bad Guys" list isn't fair;
(but yes, it would be funny having the Forum full of threads like "Sorry all, broke my leg and been stuck in Hospital a week long" by people trying to excuse why their RR sucks)
- And whatever is in between would have a variable rate of both flaws, depending whether is closer to the first or closer to the second.
That would explain my last 2 lines.
You didn't say get rid of a hall of reliability, Devo.
*I* (basically) said it.
But yes, I could be wrong.
Please mind: I didn't say it sucks or it's an idiot idea. Actually it looks good. But it's probably not.
- - -
@ Ruff.
"I think that a 'Hall of Reliability' *and* a 'Hall of Shame' are good tools for any Diplomacy community."
Well, the only tool I need is RR Setting when I create a game. It's all I need to avoid unreliable players.
Knowing who's the best or who's the worst is just a matter of interest or maybe just of curiosity.
If being forbidden to join new games (that's the REAL tool) doesn't discourage unreliable players, why should a list, I wonder.
"Why would it be a bad idea to hold people accountable for their behavior?"
Nice idea indeed. You could propose a list of people who's been blocked or muted by, say, 3 or more players, so we would know who are the worst behaving people on this site.
But...no... it also is probably not a good idea, instead. For the same reasons "unreliables" list isn't: shame & blame.
- - -
@Leif.
"Online etiquette (like committing to finish a game you started??) is something that the internet could use a little more of. If new users see the community publicly and actively passionate about this, we encourage more of the reliable types to stay, and discourage the flaky types from remaining long."
This makes sense. I'm with you. Well, maybe. I'd be with you, but first I'd like to hear what Mods have to say about this.
What I figure out is that they probably read, on Modforum, all complaints by people who can't join new games because of their bad RR. And I figure out that most of them are new users, because expert players should have learnt how to handle their games, I assume.
So how many are these users? How big is the problem? Mods could tell us. Because you know, you don't propose a solution if you don't have a problem.
Probably I don't see any problem because I join/create only games with high RR requirements.
So I'm blind to this problem and that's why I'd like to hear first from Mods: they have the best point of view.
)
just curious
)
)
)