From: tom@soda.berkeley.edu (Tom Holub)
Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek
Subject: Re: Tom's* Scheduling Counter-Proposal
Date: 14 Dec 1992 01:32:34 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <wf9Jhja00VpNM3lkxR@andrew.cmu.edu> Kevin Michael Bernatz <kb32+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
)
)Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.netrek: 8-Dec-92 Tom's* Scheduling
)Counter-P.. Tom Holub@soda.berkeley. (1665)
)
)> In the past, I have been opposed to ranking systems because 
)> they tend to be weighted towards high-visibility teams.  I
)> still feel that this is true, and is enough reason to not use
)a ranking-driven scheduling system.
)
)You say "In the past", does this mean you would consider other ranking
)systems besides the one you posted?  If so, what considerations must be
)in them?  If not, what would cause you to reject a ranking system?

I would consider other ranking systems if the rankings are soft;
that is, if there is not much harm in the ratings being incorrect.

)Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.netrek: 8-Dec-92 Tom's* Scheduling
)Counter-P.. Tom Holub@soda.berkeley. (1665)
)
)> My proposal is to break teams into 3 'skill levels'.  Assuming a
)> 6-game schedule, teams in the top level will play 3 games against
)> other top-level teams, 2 games against mid-level teams, and one
)> game against a low-level team.  Mid-level teams will play 2 games
)> against each skill level.  Low-level teams will play 3 games
)> against other low-level teams, 2 games against mid-level teams,
)> and 1 against a high-level team.
)
)Hmm, this could be difficult to accomplish.  Who would have thought
)LaggU was going to perform as they did, or OTR.  How do you plan on
)doing this ranking?  Just the INL council?  Do council members who are
)team members get to vote for their own teams?  Just wondering since
)other ranking systems would need to know this as well.

Yes, it would be done in the Council.  And yes, it will not be
perfect.  I feel, however, that the difference between the rankings
is small enough that an error will not be killing.  Putting a
top-rank team in the low-rank bracket would be very bad, but I think
we would know at least that wall.  Taking the fall as an example,
Lagg U would probably have been in the middle bracket (but still 
would have had a harder schedule than they actually did, winding up
4-2 or 5-1) and OTR would probably have been in the top bracket 
(going 2-4 or 3-3).

)Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.netrek: 8-Dec-92 Tom's* Scheduling
)Counter-P.. Tom Holub@soda.berkeley. (1665)
)
)>   It's more work for the INL Council but it's
)> still all pre-season work.  Captains will still have their 
)> entire schedule laid out at the beginning of the season.
)
)This seems to be you're big gripe with other systems.. is that a correct
)assumption?  Is you're main goal to make it easier on the captains?

It is a major goal, yes, and it is the main problem I have with 
the ladder and swiss systems.  I also want to make it easier on
the Council (or the mythical Scheduling Dude); some of the proposals
require a large amount of ongoing work by the scheduler, which 
I think is a bad thing.
 -Tom