Inactivity rewarded again.

[jeffdos924]

Les ... I didn't mean to take your post as personally as I did. You did say, the current #1 team, which isn't us. I went a little overboard, because I'd seen the same kind of comments from one of your partners several times before.
Don't misunderstand me ... I agree 100% that inactivity should not be rewarded. In my mind, no team/player should EVER advance in rank without defeating a higher ranked team/player ... period!! . Twice in the last month or so, our team has been the focus of this discussion - about a #1 rank that we inherited, but didn't earn. The same situation has happened to me on the Ladder 9 again ...I was #30 or so, haven't played a single match since at least Friday because this was my weekend to work. Lo & behold, I get home from work this morning and I'm back in the Top 25,with a whole new set of counters- where my clock would have been 3 days, it was reset to 0. (Same thing as mentioned in BeDaBall's post above). There's just something wrong with that picture, but that's a different discussion and I'm not beating that dead horse again.
Again, I apologize if it seems that i took offense earlier. I just let my frustration leak out a lot more than I intended.

[Faterson]

I sat on my hands for 10 days and was able to climb right back into the top 20.

There must be a bug (and Jeff confirms it as well!) because the Ladder 9 deadline is 5 days, not 10 days. You should have been dropped 10 or 25 places after the first 5 days. I have also noticed the same counters bug (helping me) on Ladder 18.

BUG DESCRIPTION

The bug occurs when one type of counter gets replaced by a different counter, but it starts counting from 0.00, which is wrong. For example, your counter goes up to 4.92 when you're ranked #26. Then you happen to move up to #25 and the counter gets replaced by the 26down counter, starting to count from 0.00 again.

The correct procedure would have been for the 26down counter to resume counting where the first counter left off: that is, at 4.92. After all, you are supposed to play a match every 5 days.

I also believe (as I suggested a few months ago) it would be more useful if these counters were counting down rather than counting up. I'd find it more helpful if the counters were showing the time remaining until next match, instead of the time since the last match. The deadlines are different for Ladders 3/9/18/Guilds, and I get confused by this. If the counters were counting down on every ladder, then there would be no confusion as to how much time you have remaining to play your next match. (Now I need to perform that calculation in my head every time.)

[SLASHX]

Jeff i am sorry if my previous posts offended you or anyone else... that wasn't my intention at all. I was/am just frustrated with inactivity being rewarded with the way the ladders are currently set up... nothing more nothing less.

I have decided to just stfu about it from now on because i am even getting tired of hearing me bitch about it... so at least you guys wont have to read me complaining about it anymore.

[geordieles]

I sat on my hands for 10 days and was able to climb right back into the top 20.

There must be a bug (and Jeff confirms it as well!) because the Ladder 9 deadline is 5 days, not 10 days. You should have been dropped 10 or 25 places after the first 5 days. I have also noticed the same counters bug (helping me) on Ladder 18.

BUG DESCRIPTION

The bug occurs when one type of counter gets replaced by a different counter, but it starts counting from 0.00, which is wrong. For example, your counter goes up to 4.92 when you're ranked #26. Then you happen to move up to #25 and the counter gets replaced by the 26down counter, starting to count from 0.00 again.

The correct procedure would have been for the 26down counter to resume counting where the first counter left off: that is, at 4.92. After all, you are supposed to play a match every 5 days.

I also believe (as I suggested a few months ago) it would be more useful if these counters were counting down rather than counting up. I'd find it more helpful if the counters were showing the time remaining until next match, instead of the time since the last match. The deadlines are different for Ladders 3/9/18/Guilds, and I get confused by this. If the counters were counting down on every ladder, then there would be no confusion as to how much time you have remaining to play your next match. (Now I need to perform that calculation in my head every time.)

Looking at Bedaballs results history there is no bug he did nt play for 5 days took the drop and still did nt play until the clock nearly ran out a 2nd time a total of 10 days but after the drop he was able to climb back into top 25 within the 2nd 5 day period without playing a match.

[Faterson]

I've already talked to Mark about this via PM. In my instance on the Ladder 18, I was allowed to go for weeks without playing a match, thanks to one deadline clock cancelling the other clock. Also, read Jeff's post at the top of this page; he describes the same anomaly.

It may not be a "bug", but then it's not set up correctly. The main Ladder 9 deadline rule is that everyone must play a match at least once every 5 days. It must not happen that one deadline clock cancels (resets) the other deadline clock! Because that defeats the whole purpose of the 5-day deadline arrangement.

If you remember, the "26down" deadline clock was only an after-thought. It's a sub-rule of the main rule. The main rule is that everyone must play a match at least once every 5 days. It must not be allowed that a sub-rule (which only says who you should play your match with) cancels the main rule, allowing players to go without playing a match not only for 10 days, but potentially forever. (All they need to do is to go within, and outside, and within, and outside the top 25, every few days, without playing a match. This can happen, thanks to other players' movement around them.)

(This is the exact same problem I predict for the challenge system if you allow a confirmed challenge match to be cancelled just because a player's position later on changes in one way or another. That's what's happening here: a player enters the top 25, and suddenly the main obligation of every ladder player, that of playing at least 1 match every 5 days, is removed. That should never be allowed to happen.)

[geordieles]

Is nt this similar to what ive been trying to say,players moving up without playing?

[Faterson]

It's very similar, but whereas the other concerns are debatable, open to discussion, etc., this other thing described by Jeff and others (= that the deadline for a sub-rule is capable of cancelling and resetting the main deadline clock for the main rule) seems clearly wrong and should be remedied so that truly every Ladder 3/9 player must play a match every 5 days (no matter his/her movement in ranks). Ditto for the 10-day deadline on Ladder 18 and the 7-day deadline in Guilds Open.

[geordieles]

As ive said earlier in a different thread a change in the EXISTING LADDERS to no drop of rank for a loss would solve a lot of this,timers could remain because it would not effect active players just drop inactive or stagnant players and they could not climb back up the ladder without playing.The challenge when implemented would stop any stagnancy at the top and as mentioned a top 4 shoot out once a week/fortnight whatever is decided would see a lot more movement in the ladders.

[geordieles]

Les ... I didn't mean to take your post as personally as I did. You did say, the current #1 team, which isn't us. I went a little overboard, because I'd seen the same kind of comments from one of your partners several times before.
Don't misunderstand me ... I agree 100% that inactivity should not be rewarded. In my mind, no team/player should EVER advance in rank without defeating a higher ranked team/player ... period!! . Twice in the last month or so, our team has been the focus of this discussion - about a #1 rank that we inherited, but didn't earn. The same situation has happened to me on the Ladder 9 again ...I was #30 or so, haven't played a single match since at least Friday because this was my weekend to work. Lo & behold, I get home from work this morning and I'm back in the Top 25,with a whole new set of counters- where my clock would have been 3 days, it was reset to 0. (Same thing as mentioned in BeDaBall's post above). There's just something wrong with that picture, but that's a different discussion and I'm not beating that dead horse again.
Again, I apologize if it seems that i took offense earlier. I just let my frustration leak out a lot more than I intended.

Jeff no need for apologies my friend i to am venting frustrations for what i believe to be right i am not personally attacking anyone and if anyone feels i am i to apologise this is not my intension,i m just trying to imput some ideas which could maybe make this very enjoyable site a bit better as it grows. Hapy golfing buddy.

[Faterson]

What about a compromise? A minimal drop in ranks, say 2 or 3 places, for a lost ladder match to a lower-ranked player?

You see, I still see a potential for abuse if there is no drop in ranks at all for a lost ladder/challenge match to a lower-ranked player. There are lots of good buddies here who would happily post fictional losses to their friends in order to help them climb the ladder, especially if their hot streak happens to be broken at the moment anyway, and if there's no drop in ranks for them for losing to a lower-ranked player.

I agree the current drop in ranks of 10% can be pretty harsh, if the ladder has 230+ players... Losing to an Unranked player and dropping 23 places does seem rather brutal and probably discourages high-ranked ladder players from playing with those ranked much lower than them.

Maybe if each such loss would only be penalized with a drop of 3 places, this would be acceptable for everyone? (And the abuse of posting fictional losses to one's lower-ranked buddies would be discouraged as well.)