APCR (ASL Player Comparative Ratings)

dlazov

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2004
Messages
7,941
Reaction score
1,291
Location
Toledo, Ohio
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
So are we now saying that in order to participate and to be able to play a game of ASL we now have to register with the central AREA players union (CAREAPU), sign a consent form for the public release of any personal data or sign a waver prohibiting the release of private data, obtain our registration ID and AREA rating and by paying an additional fee for our digital encoded ID badge to be displayed at all times while at that tournament and be placed in a pool with others with the same AREA rating (plus or minus 13%, currently)?

It would then make it irrelevant if one started playing ASL in 1985, 1995, 2005, 2015, or 2020, what would then matter is the coveted AREA rating and the stipulation that if your AREA rating is lower than mine or outside the 13% range I can decline to play you at a tournament since it may impact the coveted AREA rating.

Be damned if your an ASLSK player or a returning ASL player, your AREA rating classifies you as a lowly and not worthy opponent for those with higher AREA ratings.

Next up will be the ability to submit blood and DNA for a digital tattoo containing your AREA rating and elite membership in the CAREAPU system.

Did I forget to mention that this is a game and we are supposed to have fun playing a complex yet fun war game that usually tells a story that two fellows can enjoy or laugh over a beer or soda?
 

The Magnus

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
229
Reaction score
245
First name
Flavius Magnus Maximus Augustus II
Country
llSweden
Surely, the EU General Data Protection Regulation is imperfect. But the basic problem is not the regulation but - on the contrary - the lack of it to protect those from which data is collected really originates against their consent.

...

To close the circle:
If Grenadier needed a data security officer and you applied bragging about doing nothing, then you were unfit for the job and the wrong man. ;)

von Marwitz
I am definitely the wrong man to have any data security job in Germany ;). I was definitely the right man for the job at the Swedish company where I had global responsibility for data security👍.

Protection of Intellectual Property, in the "classical sense", is key to private enterprise and our economic prosperity. Luckily, all western democracies agree on this. It is the extension of the definition of Intellectual Property to "Data in General" that has opened up a gulf between countries primarily focusing on individual freedom and economic growth, such as the US, and countries primarily focusing on "the collective" (your personal data stored at a financial institution in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands are certainly not considered "protected" by the German Government, they will gladly pay local residents to steal that data for their usage and have done so repeatedly during the last 20 years. I am not condoning tax fraud, I am just pointing out that the definition of "private data" very much is in the eyes of the beholder). On individual vs the collective: the movement in the US during the last 20-30 years to grant corporations the rights of individuals/persons has only exasperated this gulf.

I am critical to the GDPR of the EU, but I respect it. German DPR is in my opinion "bullshit", as it goes far beyond the EU rights in its implementation and is directly harmful to corporations with no visible benefit to the individuals. Case in point: around 12 years ago I was working at a company where we had two HR (Human Resources) IT systems. One for the thousands of employees around the world including 6 other European countries, and one for the 60 employees in Germany. I was responsible for both systems. Without going into too much detail, and without disclosing any confidential information, the "Betriebsrat" in Germany managed to successfully argue that the personal data stored in the HR system - such as names, wages, Social Security information - could not be stored outside the EU. "Safe Harbor" agreements were successfully fought. We even had problems getting corporate financial informations out of Germany, but through some scrubbing via Excel we managed to get quarterly reports out. The extra cost to the company was substantial. At the time I left the company they still had two HR systems.

I find it interesting, von Marwitz, that you post on Gamesquad. Gamesquad is owned by a private individual. By the law in his country of residence, he "owns" your postings. Because he - presumably - has no commercial dealings in the EU or even worse Germany, you have NO recourse. Why don't you switch to Facebook, who is "at war" with the EU? I am sure your protections would be a lot stronger there :p.

As for Grenadier - Koch gave me the job. I have it. You cannot have it. 👮‍♂️👮‍♂️👮‍♂️
 

The Magnus

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
229
Reaction score
245
First name
Flavius Magnus Maximus Augustus II
Country
llSweden
So are we now saying that in order to participate and to be able to play a game of ASL we now have to register with the central AREA players union (CAREAPU), sign a consent form for the public release of any personal data or sign a waver prohibiting the release of private data, obtain our registration ID and AREA rating and by paying an additional fee for our digital encoded ID badge to be displayed at all times while at that tournament

Next up will be the ability to submit blood and DNA for a digital tattoo
No, don't worry. Anglo-saxons don't have to sign, nor do Swiss, Norwegians, Middle- and South-Americans, Asians and Africans. Denmark was smart, so the Danish do not have to sign due to their "Overstatsligt samarbejde om retlige og indre anliggender" ("Dexit light") :).

Only Germans have to submit blood, due to their stronger GDPR :) .

As for me, my attitude towards signing forms is well known, so I do not have to.
 

The Magnus

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
229
Reaction score
245
First name
Flavius Magnus Maximus Augustus II
Country
llSweden
This is starting to sound like more trouble than its worth. Let's go back to random pairings every round.
I do not see the problem, Michael. Build a system in Canada, host it in the US. Make whatever rules you want. Participation is voluntary, depending on the system either on a TD or individual basis.

Gamesquad is now owned by one man. He decides. The AREA/APCR replacement seems to be headed towards being owned by one guy. He decides.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
11,055
Reaction score
4,558
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
It's also important to consider processes and workflows.
Oh, very true!

I believe the most important and basic question to decide first is whether the new AREA will be of the "open" type or of the "closed" type akin to the old AREA.

Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages:

Let's start with the "open AREA" concept.

Advantages of "open AREA":
  1. Players would create their personal account
  2. Players would (well, should...) be able to type their name correctly.
  3. Players would enter their own games
  4. Workload would be distributed
  5. As individual players decide what to enter nor not to enter, the problems with data protection should be overseeable.
  6. This concept could cover not only tournament games but basically any game.
Disadvantages of "open AREA":
  1. It will be patchwork as experience shows that only a few participants of tournaments would enter data. There would be no tournament which is entirely covered by "open AREA".
  2. There is no control about the quality or integrity of the data entered. Players might type their own name correctly but not so that of their opponent, maybe they don't even know it or forget it (see all these "unknown paddy" entries in ROAR...).
  3. Fake entries (to improve one's rating), solitaire games, and all such stuff would find their way into AREA.
  4. Due to the inferior quality, integrity, and patchwork nature of an "open" concept, it would defeat the original purpose of AREA as a reliable source of player ratings and a tool to cover tournaments in its entirety.
Now to the "closed AREA" concept, i.e. the one that has been used by the old AREA and which I would favor.


Advantages of "closed AREA":
  1. Tournaments can be covered in their entirety which is impossible (at least very unrealistic) in an "open" concept.
  2. Tournament directors, by definition, know the outcomes of all relevant games, they know the names of the participants, they know the pairings, they know the scenario names and IDs. This is an invaluable advantage for data collection.
  3. If only TDs can enter results, then there will be no "fake" games in the database.
  4. The value of the "closed AREA" approach has been proven in practice in the past. After all, this is why now people think about reviving AREA.
  5. As part of their "terms of use", tournament directors can require the consent of data on game results to be collected, solving some issues there.
  6. Due to the data that would be fed to a "closed AREA" being of better quality, the ratings would be more meaningful. Without wanting to dispraise the efforts of the great website "ASL Scenario Archive" I suggest to compare the "open" ranking list there ( https://www.aslscenarioarchive.com/allplayers.php ) with the "closed" old AREA list defunct for a couple of years here ( http://www.asl-area.org/Area.html ). Looking at the player's names and their respective rank, everyone can judge for themselves, which of the two rankings is more meaningful. Both systems do not use the same algorithm I think, so to some extent it might be understandable that the ranking differs. Yet for one and the same player, the relative rank might differ a lot which will mostly be caused by the disadvantages of an "open AREA" concept.
Disadvantages of "closed AREA":

  1. The actual work of entering data will rest on less shoulders, namely the TD's maybe augmented by a couple of volunteers that enter data provided to them.
  2. A "closed" concept will require a system that administers access rights, passwords, and someone who determines who will be granted access.
  3. Not being among those that have access may touch the sensitivities of some.
  4. Bruno Nitrosso told me one of the main problems he had while maintaining AREA and entering the data was that despite receiving it from TD's only (and thus already having a much better basis than otherwise), it was often slips of paper with unreadable handwriting, incomplete names, and missing info. These slips were those that TD's often ask players to fill out and hand in during a tournament. On site, it might still be easy enough to find out who has won, which scenario it was, etc. But afterwards, things get difficult and may be tedious. This work would rest mainly on the TD's and volunteers. The prime responsibility would rest on TD's or volunteers present at the respective tournaments to collect quality data right from the beginning. Bullshit in, bullshit out. This disadvantage is much greater in an "open" concept, naturally. Yet, I also list it among the disadvantages here, because some TD's might not like this sort of work.
We want to avoid the previous situation where one person was doing all the work, and eventually gives up, so the work has to be distributed over multiple people. This means user accounts and permissions.

Let's say Joe is TD for the ASL World Championship 2021. He obviously needs to be able to enter results, but what if there are players who are not currently in the system. Should he be able to create new player records for those people?
Yes, he should be able to create new player records. And he has to be very precise doing it to avoid misspelled names which would result in double accounts etc. A real problem that Bruno Nitrosso had to deal with which was tedious.

And what about the tournament itself? Should he be able to create a new tournament within the system? Or do we have super-users who can do that, then give Joe permissions to update it?
Not sure about this. But I am convinced that there would be the need for some sort of super-user / super-administrator.

Or perhaps we have the concept of a tournament series i.e. a super-user can create the "ASL World Championship" series, and Joe is allowed to create the "2021" edition, "2022" edition, etc.
I think that a TD of a tournament should be able to create "editions" of this (yearly?) event without assistance by a super-admin.

What happens if Joe doesn't enter the results? Is another TD allowed to do it, or does it have to be done by a super-user? Data entry is always messy and error-prone, so do we have a process that requires someone else to check the data before it goes live?
For big events such as ASLOK, I believe a team of people should be assigned to the job and be granted permission to enter the data. As said before, the main responsibility for entering correct and complete data would rest with the TD's. However, these are by far the best suited to do so as they have most of the correct information to begin with (names, scenarios, pairings, etc.) as they run their tournament. They can also minimize the amount of errors, if they hand out slips of papers that hold most of the info to begin with and leave the players only the task to file in sides, winner, balance, and fun rating (whereas the latter two would not be required for AREA but rather for ROAR). The TD's and their on-site volunteers are the key-persons to make the system run smoothly.

Allowing player records to be created by someone other than the player themself also opens another can of worms, because will the record contain information the player might want to change? They then need to have an account themself, and some way of connecting their account to the already-created player record. This last bit would need to be done by a super-user (to avoid abuse) i.e. a manual process :-( You could have the person send a request to the sysadmin to have the information changed, but that's more manual work.
This can of worms can be kept tightly closed if the 'terms of participation' in a tournament could require the consent to adding the player names and results to the AREA database. If some people do not want to have their real name displayed, then this real name might only be visible on the back-end while a nickname or number appears on the front end that would be visible to anyone visting the site. Anyone who has access to the back-end would need to be able to see the real names, though, I think.

Someone else mentioned GDPR, and this is a real consideration. I don't know much about this, but my understanding is that people have the right to request their personal data be deleted. Not made private, deleted. Are game results considered to be personal data? I don't know, talk to a lawyer. Name and country? Surely. What effect does that on the system overall, not being able to have any information on a player at all?
Within certain bounds, the GDPR grants people the right to be informed about the data that is stored about them, to have it corrected or deleted. I am no lawyer in this field, so I cannot fathom the implications in every detail. Let us think the following example: Player A has 100 games logged into AREA, the results of course affect his own rating and that of others. Would it be sufficient if his name will be terminally deleted on the front- and back-end but some number or standard entry remains, so that the ratings of other players remain unchanged by Player A dropping out? Or would everything have to be deleted which would also effect the ranking of other players? Not sure. If one wanted to be on the safe side, probably the latter option. However, I think the following would not work nor could be legally enforced by Player A: First sign up for the tournament, give your consent for AREA data collection and upon the conclusion of the tournament retract the consent and demand everything deleted (i.e. what Magnus did as mentioned in his post up-thread). After all you can't sign a contract and afterwards say that you are not bound to it.

It might actually be a good thing, since it will force the design to handle it. The current AREA site has the concept of a private player, but I think that just means they don't appear in the list of players. However, their game results (including their name) still appear on the tournament pages; IOW, not really private, just somewhat obfuscated.
Maybe one could program it in a way that the entry "opted out" appears on the front end for every player that did so, while at the back end some anonymized number remains or does not remain. Or one could program it that no AREA rating is changed by the effects of people opting out. Good question.

So OK, a player Fred competed in this tournament and had a player record created for him. He then asks for it to be removed, so we now know him as player #123, with no identifying personal information whatsoever, just his game results. But when Fred plays at the European Championships, how does that TD know that Fred is player #123, and he should use that player record, instead of creating a new one?
If Fred just wants his personal name removed for the common public, this case could be caught if he is at least fine that his name plus attached ID# or nickname can be seen in the back-end by TD's only.
But one problem might be that Fred, being very ambitious but not very skilled, starts with his first record and a rating of 1000. Then he loses a couple of games, changing his score to 900. Being an arse, he determines that it is 'best' to demand his record deleted with all information completely and then at the next tournament claims he never had one, thus resetting his score to 1000, i.e. cheating himself up by 100 points. Probably, this could not be prevented. But on the other hand, one might just put up with this because few people would to this and by this means, he could never raise above the average entry score of 1000.

Or even worse, Fred tells the TD up-front that he doesn't want to be in this new AREA. How does the TD enter his game results, assuming Fred's opponents want their results recorded?
Three possible ways to address this.
One would be without consent to AREA, no admission for the tournament. Sounds rash, but seems to be the standard operating procedure in business right, left, and center.
The second way would be to assign anyone that does not want his results recorded a standard rating which is counted against his opponent, i.e. the standard 1000. This might scew the integrity of ratings though, because if Pleva opts out and is thus assigned the standard 1000 and then beats Fortenberry who did not opt out, Fort's rating will plummet if Pleva wins. So probably this is not a good option.
The third way would be that if one or more players do not want to be rated, then the game is not rated for both.

I think all this points to a need for the system to be able to handle anonymous players e.g. the ability to record a game result like "Mike beat someone". But how can a rating system possibly work if you don't know who one person is?

This is incredibly messy, but it's a people problem, not a technical one. The underlying issue is: what do you do when one person doesn't want to have their game results recorded, but the other one (and TD) does? Decide that, and that will then drive the technical design.
Again, two ways to address this:
If one of the involved parties does not want it, then it does not happen. Just like sex. That is pretty straightforward.
The other way would be to make the consent to AREA a prerequisite to be allowed to sign up and take part in the tournament.

Do we require people consent to have their game results recorded? Would that even fly under GDPR? And while some people have said that this is heavy-handed, I can't imagine there's a single serious competition in the world that lets you compete, but also refuse to have your results recorded. If we want to say that ASL competitions are always friendly, relaxed affairs, then so be it, but some people do take their ratings seriously. What happens when one person really doesn't want to be in the system, but the other person really wants the points? Maybe we have AREA-required and AREA-optional tournaments, but that doesn't really solve the design problem, because we still have to be able to handle the AREA-optional tournaments.
I think required consent would fly under the GDPR. If the 'terms of use' of FaceBook do (after some adaptations), than whatever a TD might want to require with regard to AREA would do, I reckon. Provided that AREA itself is designed in a way that a standard of data protection is preserved.

I never really saw the point of recording who is "attacker" and who is "defender". It's possible that an algorithm might take it into account when calculating a rating, but how would it work if both players are attacking? Or not recorded?

Even more pointless is "Axis" and "Allies". We saw how people can react to this (a fair consideration, IMO), and it's hard to see how a ratings algorithm would need this information, so why bother? Just note for the record that Alice had the Laotian Communist Freedom Fighters, Bob the People's Front of Judea, and be done with it 🤷
The Attacker/Defender was recorded (I think) because some of the data was also fed to ROAR.


von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

The Magnus

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
229
Reaction score
245
First name
Flavius Magnus Maximus Augustus II
Country
llSweden
Within certain bounds, the GDPR grants people the right to be informed about the data that is stored about them, to have it corrected or deleted. I am no lawyer in this field, so I cannot fathom the implications in every detail. Let us think the following example: Player A has 100 games logged into AREA, the results of course affect his own rating and that of others. Would it be sufficient if his name will be terminally deleted on the front- and back-end but some number or standard entry remains, so that the ratings of other players remain unchanged by Player A dropping out? Or would everything have to be deleted which would also effect the ranking of other players? Not sure. If one wanted to be on the safe side, probably the latter option. However, I think the following would not work nor could be legally enforced by Player A: First sign up for the tournament, give your consent for AREA data collection and upon the conclusion of the tournament retract the consent and demand everything deleted (i.e. what Magnus did as mentioned in his post up-thread). After all you can't sign a contract and afterwards say that you are not bound to it.
I actually agree with you, von Marwitz, on this one :) . Me signing a consent form - with or without my written protest next to my signature - and then retract the consent afterwards is of course, to use my presently favourite term, "legal bullshit".

But, and not to belate the point, involving GDPR in the AREA/APCR discussion is irrelevant as long as the owner and server do not reside in EU and have no revenues in the EU. EU is as hopelessly inept and actually totally irrelevant against AREA/APCR as they are against Covid19 😱😱😱. Me - I live in Sweden where I can either shop until I drop, or die, or both (in that order, unless it is bought on-line with a long MMP-like delivery time).
 

DougRim

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
466
Reaction score
546
Location
Ottawa
Country
llCanada
I do not see the problem, Michael. Build a system in Canada, host it in the US. Make whatever rules you want. Participation is voluntary, depending on the system either on a TD or individual basis.

Gamesquad is now owned by one man. He decides. The AREA/APCR replacement seems to be headed towards being owned by one guy. He decides.
Let me me clear, in the finest words of Sergeant Schultz: "I own nothing."

I think my posts have made my approach to ownership of both the tools and the data clear: community ownership and community accessibility. There is a clear and sharp distinction between the ownership of GS and the ownership of the ASL Player Rating tool.

Yes, I am building it in a certain way. But nothing will stop others from being able to change it. Or build a different tool.
 

The Magnus

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
229
Reaction score
245
First name
Flavius Magnus Maximus Augustus II
Country
llSweden
Let me me clear, in the finest words of Sergeant Schultz: "I own nothing."

I think my posts have made my approach to ownership of both the tools and the data clear: community ownership and community accessibility. There is a clear and sharp distinction between the ownership of GS and the ownership of the ASL Player Rating tool.

Yes, I am building it in a certain way. But nothing will stop others from being able to change it. Or build a different tool.
Sorry, I stand corrected. I salute your altruism and I wish you and the tool all the best.

But if you get tired of 300 people each pointing in different directions, you have my blessing - for what it is worth - to "point with the whole hand" as I was taught to do in the Swedish Army :).

1325513255
 
Last edited:

Actionjick

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
728
Reaction score
517
Country
llUnited States
This is starting to sound like more trouble than its worth. Let's go back to random pairings every round.
I totally agree with you.

Anyone who is designing a rating system needs to define what their objective is and proceed from there. Players might be more willing to participate if the designer clearly states the intent of such a project.

I believe it's a mistake to use any rating system at tournaments. Tasking the TD with the burden of checking ratings, updating ratings in real time and entering the results is also a mistake. TD's have enough on their plate as it is. How long would it take to do those things for large tournaments like ASLOk, Albany or WO?

To each his own but I think time could be better spent playing the game than crunching numbers that most players probably don't care about.
 

Augie

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
687
Reaction score
137
Location
Florida
Country
llUnited States
My quick thoughts:
  1. Player ratings for Non-Tournament games contributes to weird, undesirable, competitive behavior - some of which has been noted here. There is also other 'weird behaviors' that have not been stated that I have seen or heard. APCR should only be used for Tourneys. I personally will never agree to APCR-rated play for any Non-Tourney games.
  2. For Tournaments: If one or more players does not want to participate in the APCR, then they get assigned to "Anonymous Player". APCR tracks Anonymous Player like any other player, whose rating will go up and down based on the quality play that the Anonymous Player group does. It will be a homogeneous rating, but should satisfy both concerned player(s) and Tourney Director.
 
Last edited:

STAVKA

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
504
Reaction score
217
Location
East Front
Country
llFinland
Would it be possible to restrict access only to TD that are granted an account with password?

The site should only be for Tournament play.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
11,055
Reaction score
4,558
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
I believe it's a mistake to use any rating system at tournaments. Tasking the TD with the burden of checking ratings, updating ratings in real time and entering the results is also a mistake. TD's have enough on their plate as it is. How long would it take to do those things for large tournaments like ASLOk, Albany or WO?
No one is forcing any TD to use AREA. If they don't want to, they don't do it. End of story. It has been the same way with the old AREA.

But some TDs wanted to do it, so no one is placing a burden upon them but rather they elect to take it upon themselves. And all I am saying is that IMHO TDs are the best suited persons to get it done if they want it. And that a "closed" AREA concept, in which it is the TDs that do it (if they want to), will yield the best result in the end.

Cheers,
von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

STAVKA

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
504
Reaction score
217
Location
East Front
Country
llFinland
For each future Tournament the TD should gather an amount of 1US$ for each tournament-participant in his gathering, 14 players = 14 US$.

That sum would be sent to the SMC(s) doing the work now and thereafter.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
11,055
Reaction score
4,558
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
My quick thoughts:
  1. For Tournaments: If one or more players does not want to participate in the APCR, then they get assigned to "Anonymous Player". APCR tracks Anonymous Player like any other player, whose rating will go up and down based on the quality play that the Anonymous Player group does. It will be a homogeneous rating, but should satisfy both concerned player(s) and Tourney Director.
This would not solve the problem, though:

If Pleva would be part of the "Anonymous Pool", he would be rated more or less average. His rating does not reflect reality, though, as we all know he plays like a God.

Per the old AREA, both Pleva and Fortenberry are roughly (and adequately) rated at roughly 2000. So if Fortenberry loses vs. Pleva in the old system, Pleva's score would not drop much.

Per your suggestion, Pleva - being part of the "Anonymous Pool" - would be rated roughly average, let's say 1500 for the sake of the example. If Fort now loses vs. Pleva, it is counted as if 2000 loses vs. 1500, downing Fort's rating significantly more, than if he would have lost 2000 vs. 2000.

This is why I would suggest preferring not to rate a game at all if at least one opponent does not want it (unless he has agreed to 'terms of use' when participating in a tournament requiring it).

Cheers,
von Marwitz
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,878
Reaction score
2,859
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
This would not solve the problem, though:

If Pleva would be part of the "Anonymous Pool", he would be rated more or less average. His rating does not reflect reality, though, as we all know he plays like a God.

Per the old AREA, both Pleva and Fortenberry are roughly (and adequately) rated at roughly 2000. So if Fortenberry loses vs. Pleva in the old system, Pleva's score would not drop much.

Per your suggestion, Pleva - being part of the "Anonymous Pool" - would be rated roughly average, let's say 1500 for the sake of the example. If Fort now loses vs. Pleva, it is counted as if 2000 loses vs. 1500, downing Fort's rating significantly more, than if he would have lost 2000 vs. 2000.

This is why I would suggest preferring not to rate a game at all if at least one opponent does not want it (unless he has agreed to 'terms of use' when participating in a tournament requiring it).

Cheers,
von Marwitz
I don't think the idea would be to make anonymous players generic. I think the idea would be they are like every other player in the rating--with all the entails--except their rating does not display and their matches played do not display to anyone other than the participants. If you and I play, you should be able to see we played, who won and who lost. If you and I played, another person could not see that by looking at your page. In this way, Pleva would still be 2K. Fort would still be 2K. They would get the same outcome. The difference would be Steve's 2K would only be known to Steve and anyone he choses to share it with. If you were to look at Fort's page, you should be able to see the number of games Fort has played, his rating, and any games he played but his game with Pleva (assuming Steve was the only person to opt out). That's how I think it would work. Perhaps it's better to say, I hope it works that way. -- jim

EDIT to add: I see now why you responded as you did.
 

Actionjick

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
728
Reaction score
517
Country
llUnited States
No one is forcing any TD to use AREA. If they don't want to, they don't do it. End of story. It has been the same way with the old AREA.

But some TDs wanted to do it, so no one is placing a burden upon them but rather they elect to take it upon themselves. And all I am saying is that IMHO TDs are the best suited persons to get it done if they want it. And that a "closed" AREA concept, in which it is the TDs that do it (if they want to), will yield the best result in the end.

Cheers,
von Marwitz
Understood that no one is forcing a TD to use a rating system. My question is why those who choose to made that decision.

Quite liked your Death Star thread!
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,387
Reaction score
127
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
OPTING out should be simple....just put all OPTOUTS under OPTOUT ranking...and see how He does.
 

M.Koch

Grenadier TD
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
2,376
Reaction score
529
Location
Germany
Country
llGermany
I am critical to the GDPR of the EU, but I respect it. German DPR is in my opinion "bullshit", as it goes far beyond the EU rights in its implementation...

As for Grenadier - Koch gave me the job. I have it. You cannot have it. 👮‍♂️👮‍♂️👮‍♂️
Typicall German behavior. Gun laws in Germany are a sad example 🤬

And btw, it´s Herr Koch. I´m your Boss ☝
 
Top