From: hill@norman.VI.RI.CMU.EDU (Robert Hill)
Subject: Re: New INL scheduling proposal:(long..please read this, however)
Reply-To: hill@norman.vi.ri.cmu.edu
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 11:01:52 GMT

Tom Holub writes
> 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.

"We plan" to?  6 is a pretty good number.  We are having problems  
scheduling with TWNN as it stands now (no one is at fault, its just  
finals/final projects).

> [ regarding INL playoff quality]
> Again, this is at least partly because the fall season was too short.

More games evens things out alot.  2 more games won't provide much more  
security.

> [ about competitive teams wanting to play competitive teams]
> Competitive teams can also want to play not-so-competitive games.  I
> always enjoy our games with Lagg U, for one, and have enjoyed watching
> their progress as an INL team.

Sure.  Under this proposal, you and lagg U could play as many times as you  
like.  Each of them counting toward your total game count, and aid you in  
making the playoffs.

> [ about entering after deadlines]
> There are solutions to this that should be worked out in council, not
> on the net.

Funny, I tried to get anything passed in the council to allow lagg U to  
enter after the date, but you would not listen.  If it wasn't for bill  
bathurst entering their team BEFORE the school year started, they wouldn't  
have been in the INL this year.  How many not-so-competitive games would  
you have played against them then, tom?  

> 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.

A proposal is before the INL council?  I haven't heard anything from any  
of you guys in weeks.  I would've certainly included objections to the net  
if i'd have remembered them...i'm sure you guys would speak out if my  
BRAND new proposal didn't suite you, or the INL.  I'd heard people mention  
"ladder" and then the next thing out of their mouth was, "no" before even  
giving it a chance.  The last real discussion on a ladder proposal was  
over the summer, when I (oddly enough) didn't think it was a good idea.

How is my "propaganda" self-serving?  I want to see the INL get better  
than it is now...that is my only priority.  Geez, and people wonder why I  
think you are such an asshole...

I guess tom doesn't want anyone else's voice to count for anything,  
whereas I am interested in what INL players our there want.

> [ about ranking teams in the beginning of the season ]
> 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?

Well, assuming you have 6 games, you can move up exactly 30 slots.  The  
beginning rankings don't mean much...they are simply a beginning for the  
ladder.  I think the inlcouncil will have a better idea of who the best  
teams are than a random number generator.  

> Teams with a low profile (read: teams not from CMU or Cal) will get 
> screwed in any ranking scheme.

Hmm...how so?  Do you think TWNN would've gotten ranked lower than 4?  I  
don't think so.  How about LARiot?  Of course, you think they suck, so  
maybe you would've put them near the bottom...

> [about adding teams to the bottom of the ladder]
> So if a CMU team disbands and a new one forms, they get put at the
> bottom of the ladder.  Let's say the top 5 teams are the teams they
> are interested in playing.  According to your rules (below) they
> will probably have to play at least 4 or 5 games before they are
> in a position to play a quality game again.  Note that this is
> nearly a full INL season.

Well, since we are talking hypotheticals, if a CMU team would disband, i'm  
sure they could get someone good to play them simply for bragging rights.   
Even if they have to play 4-5 games to be on the top(if they can make it),  
don't you think this is better than having NO way for teams to join?  I  
think if you gave a team the choice of being in the INL and may not be  
able to make the playoffs, over not being in the INL, they'd chose the  
former.

> Teams have no maximum number now.  Any above 4 were called 'scrimmages'.
> They're fun, too.

Good tom, good.  Scrimmages are fun.  My point is, why should a LaRiot  
scimmage versus Deep Hurting count any less than an LaRiot game versus  
deep hurting?  They both are games..a games a game.

> The minimum was 4 for the fall and will probably be 6 for the spring.
> I don't think that's unreasonable.

Well, some teams may not be able to play 6 spring games.  The ladder  
allows teams to play pretty much as much as they like.  Teams that don't  
play or don't respond to challenges lose ladder slots, but to some teams,  
that's not a big deal.

> 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)

No.  I said that the number new number 1 team wouldn't have to play them  
if they[the new number 1 team] hadn't challenged them before.  You can go  
back and read the post again, if you like.

> 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!

Yes, you will probably have to only beat a few close seeded teams, barring  
any-outside influence.  I think the bragging factor on rec.games.netrek  
would convince you to play more games, however. 
For instance:

IAState wants to challenge Golden Bears...Golden Bears say no, they can't  
for 9 weeks...what do you think would happen?  You'd get nailed for being  
a runnerscum....then you would basically have to take the challenge.

Who knows, however, considering that you would probably do anything to  
break the system that you could...basically because you are an asshole.

> 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?

I'd say yes..they do.  It wasn't something that I considered.

> 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?

Yes...they certainly can.  You must accept the closer ladder slot.

> 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?  

No...you must play team 2, then 3 weeks after that, you must play team 3,  
if they challenge you again.  You can only be challenged by 1 team at a  
time.

> 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?

No.  My post should've read(it didn't..sorry) you must only accept up  
challenges.  If a team below you wants to play you, you MUST play them  
within 3 weeks.  If you couldn't play them you might have to cancel one of  
your challenges to a team above you.

> There are a *lot* of problems involved in a ladder system; the ones
> listed above are just off the top of my head.  And team captains note,
> this proposal will create more work for you, and more work for the
> INL Council as well.

This may mean some more work, may mean less.  I think some more work is  
fine..as long as it doesn't get unreasonable.

> )The team that plays the most total games gets an automatic bid to the  
> )playoffs.  The team that has played the most other teams gets an 
> )automatic bid to the playoffs.
> 
> This will almost certainly go to CMU, since it is much easier for CMU
> teams to schedule games with each other than it is for any other
> school.

Why do you have to turn everything into a personal war?  Why?  Quit being  
an asshole and listen for a minute.  Don't you remember that EVERY cmu  
versus cmu game this year had to have an extension approved by the INL  
council?  Don't you remember Gamera posting that future extensions for CMU  
teams would be out of the question because we had asked for so many in the  
early season?  CMU versus CMU scheduling is probably THE hardest games to  
schedule.  You posted yourself a few days weeks ago how hard it was to  
find 8 machines.  TRY FINDING 16!  Get a clue.

If you want to find something to attack on tom, please attack something  
that makes sense.  You just HAVE to get your little CMU bash in there,  
don't you?  In your response, PLEASE answer this question...i'm very  
curious as to your answer.

> )Advantages:
> )1)  entering/leaving team provision
> 
> This can be done anyway.

When?  After next season?  See the LaggU case tom, they can't wait that  
long.

> )2)  true validity of playoffs
> 
> No more than under the current system.

Hmm...you are dead wrong here.  How can you say lagg U was playoff worthy  
over XGolems and GB?  (no offense to your honestly solid team).

> )3)  more fun games for all teams

> I disagree.  If I get challanged by a team I'm not interested in 
> playing, I have to play them, just as if I had a team on my schedule 
> that I wasn't interested in playing, I would have to play them.  If I 
> challange a team that doesn't want to play me, they have to play me.

Exactly.  Just like you had them on your schedule.  Thus it could do no  
more harm.  It might even help.  Most (read:REAL) captains want to play  
every team they can.  Its nice to have a little control over who you play.

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

I'm trying to hold back the cursing simply for our international  
readers...its so hard...i must resist.  Tom, frankly, I don't give a damn  
what you say or think, got that?  When I see your posts, I think "what's  
that asshole going to say next".  When I said that I wanted comments, I  
meant "Comments from intelligent, reasonable people", i.e. not from you.   
Lastly, I hear that this newsgroup is still currently unmoderated, so i'll  
post what I like, ok?

Rob
aka Spaceace!
Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek