Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.

[Slynky]

Since it is hard to tell from looking at the PBW game itself, there are 2 empires that have been eliminated. Are any of them players who were being rated (and hence, requiring a Ratings computation)?

[geoschmo]

Don't recall who all was rated, but player 1 was Krsqk/Alneyan/Parasite and player 4 was Narrew. You can find out who had a dead empire by looking at the history screen for the game.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Don't recall who all was rated, but player 1 was Krsqk/Alneyan/Parasite and player 4 was Narrew. You can find out who had a dead empire by looking at the history screen for the game.

Well, to be more specific, as long as it wasn't any of the following (from the Ratings site), then the game is up-to-date on Ratings:

Gandalph
Geoschmo
Joachim
Loser
RexTorres
Slynky
Tesco samoa

[geoschmo]

Loser dropped out in January. Sefter took over for him. Unless you are giving Loser credit for whatever Sefter does I guess he should get dinged.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Loser dropped out in January. Sefter took over for him. Unless you are giving Loser credit for whatever Sefter does I guess he should get dinged.

Applying a rating to a person who plays a significant portion of the game (and is replaced) is not something that is "true" to the Ratings system. Whether that person turns out winning OR losing.

I have searched the thread during the time the change was made and see nothing of it. The significant Posts dealed with asking to be rated (Loser) and then a check by Loser later on asking how his old empire was doing.

So, without any good explanation for why he dropped (and if he has been playing other games since then...which I have no indication of...since he has been rather silent), he should be dinged.

I'll need to investigate further, I guess. Any help is appreciated, of course, since the intention of the Ratings system is to measure ability and not have it skewed by a player's inability to continue due to RL. On the other hand, we don't want to allow people to exit games under the pretense of RL problems because of a losing position. In this case, the Hand seemed to be in pretty good shape. So...it's hard to tell without further exploration.

[geoschmo]

If the Hand are doing that well, maybe a compromise would be to allow Sefter to be rated instead of Loser. Assuming he is interested and everyone else is willing. I wouldn't have a problem with it, since it wouldn't have a net change on the number of rated players. This would save Loser from being penalized for RL issues as you said.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
If the Hand are doing that well, maybe a compromise would be to allow Sefter to be rated instead of Loser. Assuming he is interested and everyone else is willing. I wouldn't have a problem with it, since it wouldn't have a net change on the number of rated players. This would save Loser from being penalized for RL issues as you said.

Well, RL issues for Loser would have to be established. And Sefter joining the system. BUT, the overriding theme is this (as it relates to replacement players...as I see it):

(1) No player should have his rating adjusted when he has dropped when it hasn't been a RL problem;

(2) No player should have his rating adjusted when he has taken over after a significant number of turns have been completed by an earlier player;

(3) And no player should have his rating adjusted for a game that another player has completed for him.

When I say "significant", I am meaning something before 10 turns have been completed. By significant, I mean that the game has been affected enough to assume that the beginning player played an important part in establishing a winning (or losing) position.