Points distribution rationale (it's really quite obvious)

[Jolly Roger]

Your argument and that of the other guy are entirely arbitrary. Because you think there's a "huge" difference in skill between, say, NUKE and Jolly Roger (or any other two players in that batch), then the powers that be should disregard anything quantifiable and pick a different set of levels.

i am an elitist b/c i can tell a difference between nuke and jolly roger? are you serious? nothing you have said or can say will quantify your opinions. your statements are all arbitrary, but you would have us believe they aren't. if you haven't played the highest ranked players, then it's certainly possible that you just don't know what you're fucking talking about.

I have a feeling there's a disparaging remark in here somewhere. Could one of you please tell me whether or not this is the case so that I can flame you accordingly. Thank you in advance.

[detlef]

Your argument and that of the other guy are entirely arbitrary. Because you think there's a "huge" difference in skill between, say, NUKE and Jolly Roger (or any other two players in that batch), then the powers that be should disregard anything quantifiable and pick a different set of levels.

i am an elitist b/c i can tell a difference between nuke and jolly roger? are you serious? nothing you have said or can say will quantify your opinions. your statements are all arbitrary, but you would have us believe they aren't. if you haven't played the highest ranked players, then it's certainly possible that you just don't know what you're fucking talking about.

I have a feeling there's a disparaging remark in here somewhere. Could one of you please tell me whether or not this is the case so that I can flame you accordingly. Thank you in advance.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I just picked two players who both had win % that implied that they mostly played singles. One at or near 3000, one at or near 2500 and implied that there was not likely a "huge" difference in the respective skill level between those players in order to prove a point. Neph, it appears, doesn't think you can hold NUKE's jock. If you have an issue, it is certainly with him.

My contention all along is that anyone who's managed a rating above 2500 is in an echelon of excellent players and whining that more distinction should be made between them is petty.

[Nephilim]

hee hee hee, jolly roger found the thread.....

ummm, i've only played you once, roger, that ongoing checkers flat game. but considering that a huge chunk of your score came from a battle royale and that NUKE is one of the top 5 singles players on the site imo, i feel no qualms about putting the 2 of you in different categories.

this is sort of a special case for the rankings debate, detlef, b/c a ton of jolly's score came from one huge game. kinda skews everything, imo

[detlef]

hee hee hee, jolly roger found the thread.....

ummm, i've only played you once, roger, that ongoing checkers flat game. but considering that a huge chunk of your score came from a battle royale and that NUKE is one of the top 5 singles players on the site imo, i feel no qualms about putting the 2 of you in different categories.

this is sort of a special case for the rankings debate, detlef, b/c a ton of jolly's score came from one huge game. kinda skews everything, imo

Fair enough, I had no idea that was the case and, as I mentioned above, simply picked two players on either end of the spectrum in question. Of course, that fact, along with the fact that many players on the top play team games against far inferior opponents does plenty to undermine the whole rankings system anyway.

In short, it appears one needs some in-depth info beyond simply looking at their rank regardless of whether or not more ranks are put in place. Thus, if you are truly hell-bent on determining how good a player is, you're gonna have to hit their profile regardless. Something plenty have offered as a remedy to your concern.

After all, the two players in question could have been reversed. Then, you'd have someone like gibbon who may be a fine enough player and all, but perhaps no better than many of the players with ratings 500-1000 lower. So that sort of undoes the huge need to further differentiate the highest ranked players.