From: wildman@athena.mit.edu (Timothy Worsley)
Subject: Re: New INL scheduling proposal
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:14:19 GMT

In article <1eq4rmINN3d3@agate.berkeley.edu> tom@soda.berkeley.edu (Tom Holub) writes:
>In article <By5sCC.4M.2@cs.cmu.edu> hill@norman.vi.ri.cmu.edu writes:
>)
>)Hello.  I thought this thread would be the ideal place to discuss my idea  
>)for INL scheduling.  
>)
>)The Problems:
>)

[Lots of stuff deleted]
[Gee, I don't think he likes it]

>
>Don't post anything like this again.
> -Tom

I would like to break my net-silence by saying that I like Rob's proposal.
It guarentees good games, in quantity.  It guarentees lots of fun, and a
ranking that will be better than the current system (IC better than XG?? get
real.).

It does not, as Tom pointed out, wash windows.  It needs work.  It needs
*constructive* input.  I think it can work.  I think that, with a little
input, it will work.

As a last point, it doesn't have to work perfectly.  It just has to work better
than the current system.

Here ends the 'interesting' part of my post.  The remainder is a series of
solutions to the problems he raised in his post.

>)At the beginning of the season, the INL council ranks all teams (kindof
>)like the ENPN poll).
>
>I, for one, do not want to do this, in any way, shape, or form.  Teams
>change drastically from season to season, and most people know little
>about other people's playing ability other than what they read here.
>Would anyone have chosen the Golden Bears as a top 4 team before the
>season?  Would anyone have chosen Lagg U as top 10?  Would anyone
>have ranked Off The Top Rope nearly as low as they deserve?

The obvious answer to your question is "Of course not!".  But that's just
how the numbers start out.  Once the season opens, GB is free to go tie
XGolems, Lagg U can go beat whoever they beat, and OTR can fail to ogg
to their hearts content, and the numbers will balance out.

As a counter-example, we would NOT have IC rising high due to a 'light'
schedule - in order to advance, you must beat a team that everyone thinks
is BETTER than you, not genocide a bunch of schleps.

>Note that the fall season had only 4 games.  With 6-8, as we plan for
>the spring, this will be less of a problem; random number generators
>even out.

As a computer scientist, I am wary of any solution that involves getting
a better platform to run on.  Granted, with more games your algorithm will
work better, but that does not insure that it is the best algorithm.

>Before I go on with this post, let me say that I think it's really
>stupid to take a proposal that's before the INL council, and to which a
>number of INL council members have provided objections, and posting
>it to the net as if it's a brand new thing, and failing to attach
>any of our arguments.  Public discussion is fine, but self-serving
>propaganda is not what the INL needs.

I'm offended by that.  As a player of netrek, and the INL, I like what I
see, and according to what you say, I shouldn't have seen it.  This
concerns me.  I am very glad that Rob brought this into "the light",
and I will take a very dim view of any attempt to place it once again
in darkness.

Why?  Now I can go and bug my councilor and see how we can go about
adopting this new system.

>So I'm the #2 team.  I challange the #1 team and win.  The #1 team
>drops to #2 and now has no chance of getting to #1 again, because
>he will always be bumped off by teams that haven't played me yet
>(certainly, every team in the top 5 will be wanting to challange the
>#1 team)

Granted, this is a problem.(NOT)  The poor suckers will be in the #2 position
going into the playoffs.  Who cares which exact position you are in going
INTO the playoffs?  The best team will win in the end - poor #2 will get its
re-match in the playoffs.

>Or, right after I win, I get a challange which I agree to play 3 weeks later.
>Then I get another challange which I agree to play 3 weeks later.  I win
>both and hey, it's time for the playoffs!

Ah, yes, but you forget : you are being a loser.
It's true that any rule system can be abused to produce a desired result.  Even
the INL council.  The point is that you would lose in real terms, because you
would only get to play 3 games in the year.  If you really don't like it,
propose a 'minimum number of games to go to the playoffs' rule.

>Or, I get challanged by the #5 team and accept, and then the #5 team loses
>to a team below them.  Do they still have the right to challange?

Who really cares?  This is a detail.  Rob didn't fill out all the details because
he didn't want to post a 20K doccument, but rather an idea.  If you care strongly
about this detail, then get others to care about it and insure it gets included
in the final package.

>Or, I get challanged by the #5 team and accept, and then get challanged
>by the #2 team.  Can the #2 team preempt the #5 team's challange?

This, I believe, is another detail.  See above.

>Or, I get challanged by the #2 team and accept, and then get challanged
>by the #5, #3, and #4 teams, in that order.  Do I have to keep a
>'challange queue' so I know who challanged me and in what order so
>I can work out who my next opponent is?

[This is another detail, but I have a suggestion for how it gets implemented,
which I will provide below]

Well, now, here is an advantage of Rob's plan:
	Rather than leave things to an arbitrary, unfair system/rule/council,
you can decide which team you really want to play.  Maybe you will have a reason,
maybe not.  The point is, we don't necessarily need a hard-fast rule on accepting
challenges.  Just chose which one you want to accept and accept it!

>Or, I'm the #5 team, and I've challanged the #1, #2, and #3 teams,
>and have games scheduled with them for the next 3 weekends, and
>then I get challanged by a team below me.  Do I have to play
>two games in one night?

[Yet another unfilled detail]
Gee, I dunno.  Do you want to?  Can you arrange it?  Talk to people.  Work it out.
Or propose a rule which says 'You have to do exactly this'.  I don't care.

The basic problem seems to stem from your perception of people.  I believe that the
netrek community wants to play good games, and they want a shot at winning.  This
system offers both to a better degree than the current system.  I say go with it.

This is not to say that problems don't exist.  But I'd like to keep discussion
alive rather than kill it.

--Warsong
BLOOD Pudding, champion of still-in-formation Team BLOOD