Weehawk wrote:If I understand this method correctly a member with a single first place score (and no others, or the rest crap) would be above a member who had several hundred second place scores, but no firsts. Is that the way we would want it?
Yes, why not? If he's capable of getting several hundred 2nd place scores then surely with a little more effort he can get a single 1st place score. He will then jump over all the other people with a single 1st place score and less 2nd place scores.
Weehawk wrote:
Anyway, the community has already voted for a system where points are scaled relative to a score's percentage of the first place score, which this system just now proposed would not be in accordance with.
That vote was for "Do you prefer that the awarding of leaderboard points for a submission be based on percentage of the high score, or solely on place number?". The newly 'SprintGod' system proposes that we don't award leaderboard points
at all, but merely sort by number of 1st places, then number of 2nd places, then number of 3rd places. This isn't a point based system, and nothing like it had been proposed at the time of the first poll. The first poll assumed we would be awarding leaderboard points. The community hasn't voted on whether we should award points or not.
Weehawk wrote:I am seeing two factions forming, one in favor of cutoff after third place, and one in favor of cutoff after seventh place
.
No, I think what we're seeing is that one faction doesn't want any cutoff based on places, whether it's 3rd, 5th or 7th, but since 'cutoff' won poll 2 they're suggesting 7th place as a compromise.
MARP has always been about friendly competition. The leaderboard is a way of promoting this competition by rewarding the winner of each small skirmish. Granted it's meaningless, but it seems to be enough to spur people on.
Weehawk wrote:I tentatively plan to start a poll tomorrow proposing a cutoff after fifth place, yes or no.
From what I've read (and I've not been counting) 7th place seemed to be the most popular. Why compromise further to 5th place, when the suggestion of using 7th place was already a compromise by all the people who don't want any place-based cutoff at all?