you know, i hate getting bent out of shape like this about something
so petty, but is the ranking and rating system [v:ekn] less than
worthless, or what...?
i've been working my ass off trying to get a win or two, and when i
finally do, something is all f@#$%d up, because the number of games i
have showing is all wrong, and it doesn't seem like i've gone up by an
appropriate amount -- but i sure as hell went down when i was losing
more often...
i dunno... i'm sure bannister is doing the best he can, but he
doesn't reply to emails, and something is definitely screwy... i
mean, look at the top ranked players... especially numbers 2, 3, 4,
5, 8, 18, and 20... who the hell did these guys play, in their less
than 20 game careers, to get that kind of ratings boosts...? i'm
REALLY curious...
meanwhile, i've placed third in almost every tournament i've been in,
with the exception of one 4th place finish, one second place finish
[at the nerq], and two wins... most of our tourneys have between 12
and 20 players in them... and the wins and 2nd place finish are all
the most recent stuff, so they should have some kind of impact... up
until last week, the games count wasn't right, and my rating and
ranking actually dropped...!!! i mailed bannister twice, and he
didn't reply, but he must have done something, because my rating
jumped by 50 points or so, and my ranking went up from 158 to 118...
but the number of games played is still wrong -- totally and utterly
wrong...
i'm wondering if bannister just said "who the hell is this guy...?
why is he bothering me...? i'll just toss 50 points on his rating and
ranking, and maybe he'll go away..."
i know i sound like a wicked bitch, but i worked hard to win some, and
spent a metric crapload of money on cards [which i know has nothing to
do with v:ekn], and i'm just looking to be able to point at something
and say -- "there... it was worth it..." and the thing that really
gets on my nerves is that it just doesn't seem to mean anything, the
rating and ranking system... i mean, it's MATH... just math... so
it shouldn't be hard to keep straight, or hard to fix, or hard to
figure out where the problem was and rectify it... should it...? am
i missing something...?
my games played was 24 for like 6 months running... i played in a
tourney and won... 3 round plus finals... then i did the same thing
[with the same deck] a week later... 2 rounds plus finals... 3
rounds plus finals at the qualifier a month later, and 2nd place...
those were both in january, then the nerq in february... it's april,
and last week my games played went up to 30...? how does that
happen..? did the 2nd tourney go on before the 1st one...?
i won't even bother going into the rating and ranking numbers... but
i've seen the formula, and it's fairly simple stuff, and something
just ain't right..
THAT'S more bothersome than the rating and ranking issues -- if the
games played isn't right, then the rest of it can't be right... and
if mine is all twisted, then they must all be questioned, and if
that's the case, it's just some waste of space on the web...
i know that there have been persistent problems with the archon,
especially when people drop from tourneys... maybe that's a part of
it...
okay, i'll shut up now -- i know that if i was in charge of it, it'd
be in much worse shape than it is now... but it still bugs me, and
should bug most of you... i guess that disclaimer on the page about
well-adjusted people was meant for me...?
-- khs
kevin scribner wrote:
> i know that there have been persistent problems with the archon,
> especially when people drop from tourneys... maybe that's a part of
> it...
The Archon handles drops just fine, as it always has.
The Archon handles ratings just fine. It had a few glitches in
it during the transition from Buonocore's maintenance to my own,
but those only affected the ratings calculations that the
judge on site saw, not the calculations performed by WW. It has
had no persistent problems in that area.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
"kevin scribner" <kevins...@airbridge.net> wrote in message
news:67327703.02041...@posting.google.com...
> you know, i hate getting bent out of shape like this about something
> so petty, but is the ranking and rating system [v:ekn] less than
> worthless, or what...?
Hi Kevin!
Very possibly yes; there was some discussion about this a few
months ago on the newsgroup. I think pretty much everyone who
was involved agreed that the ratings system should be changed,
either to a totally different scoring method (like "games won"
or "tournaments won" or "percentage of games won" or "percentage
of tournaments won") or by revising the parameters of the current
system (like making the "32" parameter more like "4", or the
"400" parameter more like "2000", or both).
But I haven't heard anything about V:EKN actually doing anything
with these suggestions. Maybe they will, maybe not.
> i dunno... i'm sure bannister is doing the best he can, but he
> doesn't reply to emails, and something is definitely screwy... i
> mean, look at the top ranked players... especially numbers 2, 3, 4,
> 5, 8, 18, and 20... who the hell did these guys play, in their less
> than 20 game careers, to get that kind of ratings boosts...? i'm
> REALLY curious...
If you do nothing but win, under the current system, it doesn't
take long to get a really high (by current standards) rating.
Three straight won tournaments would probably get you somewhere
above 3200, possibly higher if you won every game along the way.
> meanwhile, i've placed third in almost every tournament i've been in,
> with the exception of one 4th place finish, one second place finish
> [at the nerq], and two wins... most of our tourneys have between 12
> and 20 players in them... and the wins and 2nd place finish are all
> the most recent stuff, so they should have some kind of impact... up
> until last week, the games count wasn't right, and my rating and
> ranking actually dropped...!!!
Yeah, if you have recent wins and a 2nd, those should increase your
rating. But they really don't necessarily increase it as much as
you'd expect.
Third place in a tournament is no guarantee of having your rating
go up at all: if you don't beat anyone in the final game (ie if
1st and 2nd are the only people who got VPs in the final), you
probably lose points in the final, because 1st and 2nd both take
points away for beating you, and you won't get much if anything
by tying (the game) against 4th and 5th. And it's easy enough
to get to a final without earning any net points in the first
three rounds; if you win one preliminary game but lose both the
others badly, you can even lose points in those three rounds
but still (potentially) qualify for the final.
It's a weird-looking system, yes.
Even second place in a tournament can lose you points, if the
first-place player got all the VPs in the final. But at least
most of the time, you should at least net *some* points by
doing well over those 4 rounds.
> i'm wondering if bannister just said "who the hell is this guy...?
> why is he bothering me...? i'll just toss 50 points on his rating and
> ranking, and maybe he'll go away..."
I don't think so. I don't know why he would've had results
missing and got them in just then, except maybe that it sounds
like you played a lot of tournaments in a fairly short time
frame, and tournament organizers (certainly myself included)
are not always blindingly prompt at getting their results in.
> my games played was 24 for like 6 months running... i played in a
> tourney and won... 3 round plus finals... then i did the same thing
> [with the same deck] a week later... 2 rounds plus finals... 3
> rounds plus finals at the qualifier a month later, and 2nd place...
> those were both in january, then the nerq in february... it's april,
> and last week my games played went up to 30...? how does that
> happen..? did the 2nd tourney go on before the 1st one...?
That could happen, depending on how Todd got the results from
the tourneys. Don't know how you could've gotten to 30, though,
since it sounds like no combination of the tournaments you
played in would have added up to 6 games.
> okay, i'll shut up now -- i know that if i was in charge of it, it'd
> be in much worse shape than it is now... but it still bugs me, and
> should bug most of you... i guess that disclaimer on the page about
> well-adjusted people was meant for me...?
Heh. The 'well-adjusted' disclaimer seems to (IMO) currently
mean 'don't take these ratings too seriously, because they only
really reflect your performance at the last two or three tournies
you played in, and they don't even do that great a job of that'.
Apparently most players don't care about ratings at all. I
kinda like the brag-value, in theory, though I've never had that
much to brag about. :-)
Josh
came to play
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<a9kfkr$44g9e$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>...
> "kevin scribner" <kevins...@airbridge.net> wrote in message
> news:67327703.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > you know, i hate getting bent out of shape like this about something
> > so petty, but is the ranking and rating system [v:ekn] less than
> > worthless, or what...?
>
> Hi Kevin!
>
> Very possibly yes; there was some discussion about this a few
> months ago on the newsgroup. I think pretty much everyone who
> was involved agreed that the ratings system should be changed,
> either to a totally different scoring method (like "games won"
> or "tournaments won" or "percentage of games won" or "percentage
> of tournaments won") or by revising the parameters of the current
> system (like making the "32" parameter more like "4", or the
> "400" parameter more like "2000", or both).
>
> But I haven't heard anything about V:EKN actually doing anything
> with these suggestions. Maybe they will, maybe not.
josh, john here. i know i emailed you last time, and you explained
the procedure, but if i were to make a suggestion to vekn, it would be
to try to be more timely with these ratings updates. the vekn site
hasn't updated ratings from your mar 9 Darkling Trickery tourney.
that seems like more time than it should take, but i can only imagine
the person/s in charge of it being triple-swamped with work every day.
still, if the speed could be improved, maybe it would generate
interest in those who do feel similarly to you or i; that the
mini-brag-value, and curiosity factor, makes the ratings interesting,
if imperfect. it's cool to say, hey, i used to play with jared strait
sometimes, and look at him way up there in the top 20, etc.
snip //lots of discussion of how finishing high in a tourney can make
your rating go down... all i can say is: everyone wants that problem.
if you're 416th in the world, and you finish 2nd at a tourney, i don't
care how you did it, your rating will go up.
-john sporemage, the unranked...
"babylon sisters, shake it."-steely dan
[ quoted text not captured ]
Lots of people writing about ratings and rankings snipped.
--------------------
When it takes 3-4 weeks for tournament organizers to turn in
their Archon reports, and then people in their tournament
compete in another tournament somewhere else, the results
for that tournament somewhere else cannot be entered until
the results from the first are entered.
Currently, most of February is done, with the exception of
the NE Qualifier.
--------------------
If you want more timely updates, require your tournament organizers
to turn in their reports filled out completely and immediately.
--------------------
My own ranking is 19 games behind, and will stay that way, because
the tournament organizers didn't ever turn in their results, and
the people working on the rankings went on with the other things
they did have.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CBDB110...@white-wolf.com>...
> The Archon handles drops just fine, as it always has.
well, okay, if you say so... but i know i've watched ben peal, grant
garvin, and todd richter all sitting hunched over a laptop in the
corner at various times, tearing out hair, gnashing teeth, rending
garments, et cetera... and usualy after a drop... and the whole
"not-repeating-predator/prey-relationships" thing has seemed to be an
issue at times as well...
> The Archon handles ratings just fine. It had a few glitches in
> it during the transition from Buonocore's maintenance to my own,
> but those only affected the ratings calculations that the
> judge on site saw, not the calculations performed by WW. It has
> had no persistent problems in that area.
in any case, i was just trying to come up with some reasonable,
non-rant-esque explanation for whatever the difficulty might be...
after ranting my fair share [and then some], of course...
kevin scribner wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message> > The Archon handles drops just fine, as it always has.
>
> well, okay, if you say so... but i know i've watched ben peal, grant
> garvin, and todd richter all sitting hunched over a laptop in the
> corner at various times, tearing out hair, gnashing teeth, rending
> garments, et cetera... and usualy after a drop... and the whole
> "not-repeating-predator/prey-relationships" thing has seemed to be an
> issue at times as well...
Of course it is.
That has nothing to do with the ratings, however.
The Archon handles ratings just fine.
Moreover, even if it didn't, that would only add to Todd Banister's headaches,
not to Ben's, Grant's or Todd Richter's - all they have to do is report the
tournament, not calculate the ratings.
Leave the complaining about the Archon to those who have at least used it, eh?
[ quoted text not captured ]
The way i understand it works is that if you oust players who are
ranked higher than you this helps your rankings alot; similarly if you
lose to players ranked lower than you, this doesnt do you any favours.
I see people motoring up and down the rankings regulary, and you can
easily drop 50+places from one bad tourney. (eh, Barn?)
Heads up.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Correct. I play chess in a regular basis, and the ELO system is very
similar to the one used for Jyhad. The algorithm is kind of complex to
understand, but it basically works like this:
if you have 200 rating points over the "local" average (local meaning
the players that you go to tournies regularly), you are expected to
win and you pay a hefty price every team they beat you (oust you). So,
it means that over a legth of time, ratings in a given area tend to
reflect the relative playing strength of the players, but it becomes
more and more difficult for the player winning most of the times to
improve his rating since the "pool" of points available to him is
somewhat depleted.
In chess, a much simpler algorith is used because it is a 1-on-1 game.
If I (rated 1820) beat a beginne (r: 1050) probably I will win only
1-2 points at most. If I lose, 50-100 points may well be chopped of my
ELO
I hope this sheds some light into this matters
Rod
I haven't run any VTES tournaments, but back in the day I used to run
MTG tournaments for our local shop. In the early days, it was very
hard to get ratings calculated properly because it was all being done
by hand, and many tournament organizers didn't promptly (if ever)
submit tournament results. When this happened the events would be out
of order chronologically and many oddities would occur with players
rankings.
While I don't know if the VEKN has a ratings database of the same sort
set up (I rather doubt it is as sophisiticated since you can't
currently search on your results for a given event), but it would be
welcome addition considering the increasing number of sanctioned
events.
Most importantly however, I think that there needs to be a feedback
loop in place. If a tourney organizer gets an e-mail acknowledgement
their results were received (and better yet processed), they can
disseminate this information to the local players rather than putting
the onus onto White Wolf for all the customer support--every phone
call to them takes up time they could be better spent processing your
results instead of telling you they haven't processed them yet.
That said, I could be completely wrong with how things are actually
working from an organizer/sanctioning perspective right now and am
curious to hear stories from the field.
jon.c...@damovo.com (Jon cooper) wrote in message news:<73e3f8cc.02041...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
SHOVE IT COOPERFREAK,
Having had time to mull it over, I think the ratings system is O.K. I
have sympathy for Lasombra-Dude, getting results a bazillion years out
of date must be a pain in the ass.
The lesson is indeed to beat players higher ranked than you or keep
winning. Or not care too much about rankings. God knows I've learnt
one of them, but which one would be telling. Or something.
Anyway, I look forward to meeting Martin in Tournamnet play and
Stoving his face in good and proper.
HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT THAT?
That is All
In message <a9abcc59.02041...@posting.google.com>,
barny...@synergygroup.co.uk (Barny Baker) mumbled something about:
>HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT THAT?
We feel that we need a few beers to properly appreciate this occasion.
Especially since it won't be our face that's involved.
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<97aubugubqv38bb9t...@4ax.com>...
> In message <a9abcc59.02041...@posting.google.com>,
> barny...@synergygroup.co.uk (Barny Baker) mumbled something about:
>
> >HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT THAT?
>
> We feel that we need a few beers to properly appreciate this occasion.
>
> Especially since it won't be our face that's involved.
I'll drink to that.
barny...@synergygroup.co.uk (Barny Baker) wrote in message news:<a9abcc59.02041...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hmm. So what your saying is that Martins a big girl and your going to
"whoop" him good in the tourney and eat his cards. Also that you have
learnt to appreciate losing almost as much as winning and have
acheived an almost zen like state through the liquid art of beer
drinking.
Groovy.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:52:35 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>kevin scribner wrote:>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
>> > The Archon handles drops just fine, as it always has.
>>
>> well, okay, if you say so... but i know i've watched ben peal, grant
>> garvin, and todd richter all sitting hunched over a laptop in the
>> corner at various times, tearing out hair, gnashing teeth, rending
>> garments, et cetera... and usualy after a drop... and the whole
>> "not-repeating-predator/prey-relationships" thing has seemed to be an
>> issue at times as well...>
>Of course it is.
>That has nothing to do with the ratings, however.
>The Archon handles ratings just fine.
>
>Moreover, even if it didn't, that would only add to Todd Banister's headaches,
>not to Ben's, Grant's or Todd Richter's - all they have to do is report the
>tournament, not calculate the ratings.
>
>Leave the complaining about the Archon to those who have at least used it, eh?
I know that things get a bit thankless around here at times, but I find
your response to Kevin a bit harsh. May not have been intended, but
it's sure the way it reads.
The ratings system grumbling is nothing new. When a relative newcomer
to the newsgroup questions the validity of the system in place, maybe
people here should take a bit more notice rather than an off-handed
dismissal.
I personally find the idea of the (VTES) ratings system being based on
chess rankings somewhat humorous. But I suppose it's better than
nothing.
BernieTime
[ quoted text not captured ]
berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote:
> I know that things get a bit thankless around here at times, but I find
> your response to Kevin a bit harsh. May not have been intended, but
> it's sure the way it reads.
>
> The ratings system grumbling is nothing new. When a relative newcomer
> to the newsgroup questions the validity of the system in place, maybe
> people here should take a bit more notice rather than an off-handed
> dismissal.
Yes, it may seem harsh if you don't read the statements and apply
them to different topics or attribute hidden meanings to them.
He wasn't grumbling about the validity of the rating system.
(See the recent thread on that topic to see how that is not handled
dismissively.)
He was grumbling about how the Archon handled ratings.
And, apparently, without having any foundation for that grumbling
other than watching others use the Archon (and, coincidentally,
watching others deal with issues unrelated to the Archon, like
handling drops).
A very different matter.
> I personally find the idea of the (VTES) ratings system being based on
> chess rankings somewhat humorous. But I suppose it's better than
> nothing.
Yes, and I'm all for finding a better rating system.
When that system is found, the Archon will be modified to
handle it as well as it handles the current rating system
(that is: precisely).
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
>
> kevin scribner wrote:
> > i know that there have been persistent problems with the archon,
> > especially when people drop from tourneys... maybe that's a part of
> > it...
>
> The Archon handles drops just fine, as it always has.
>
> The Archon handles ratings just fine. It had a few glitches in
> it during the transition from Buonocore's maintenance to my own,
> but those only affected the ratings calculations that the
> judge on site saw, not the calculations performed by WW. It has
> had no persistent problems in that area.
Will we ever see the addition of tourneys we've played in listed on the
individuals web page? This can help in tracking if the correct number
of our own games have been registered.
It also serves as a historical reference of when and where we played.
Raille
"Jon cooper" <jon.c...@damovo.com> wrote in message > > >
barny...@synergygroup.co.uk (Barny Baker) mumbled something about:
> > >
> > > >HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT THAT?
> > >
> > > We feel that we need a few beers to properly appreciate this occasion.
> > >
> > > Especially since it won't be our face that's involved.
> >
> > I'll drink to that.
>
> Hmm. So what your saying is that Martins a big girl and your going to
> "whoop" him good in the tourney and eat his cards. Also that you have
> learnt to appreciate losing almost as much as winning and have
> acheived an almost zen like state through the liquid art of beer
> drinking.
>
> Groovy.
Ah, I see you also have achieved a higher state of awareness and are now
imbued with the power to interpret 'Bakerspeak' also gained through the gift
that is beer.
Cool beans.
LSJ wrote:
> kevin scribner wrote:> > well, okay, if you say so... but i know i've watched ben peal, grant
> > garvin, and todd richter all sitting hunched over a laptop in the
> > corner at various times, tearing out hair, gnashing teeth, rending
> > garments, et cetera... and usualy after a drop... and the whole
> > "not-repeating-predator/prey-relationships" thing has seemed to be an
> > issue at times as well...
>
> Of course it is.
> That has nothing to do with the ratings, however.
> The Archon handles ratings just fine.
While we're on the topic, what was the algorithm used for determining
the optimal seating chart? I'm looking to write a script to automate
the seating process when someone drops, as drops wreak havoc with
proper seating with respect to predator-prey relationships, tournaments
with both 4-player and 5-player tables, and mixing up turn order.
- Ben Peal, Prince of Boston
fu...@mindstorm.com
Ben Peal wrote:
> While we're on the topic, what was the algorithm used for determining
> the optimal seating chart? I'm looking to write a script to automate
> the seating process when someone drops, as drops wreak havoc with
> proper seating with respect to predator-prey relationships, tournaments
> with both 4-player and 5-player tables, and mixing up turn order.
Trial and error.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
barny...@synergygroup.co.uk (Barny Baker) wrote in message news:<a9abcc59.02041...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Screw you Baker - you're just bitter 'cos the last time you saw the
top 10, dungarees were in fashion.
Just go grab a beer, and take yer thumb out of yer butt will ya?
Marty
P.S. The Escrima stick will be coming with me for the next tourney to
ensure that the face remains well and truly 'unstaved'. I think you
know what I'm talking about :)
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<97aubugubqv38bb9t...@4ax.com>...
> In message <a9abcc59.02041...@posting.google.com>,
> barny...@synergygroup.co.uk (Barny Baker) mumbled something about:
>
> >HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT THAT?
>
> We feel that we need a few beers to properly appreciate this occasion.
>
> Especially since it won't be our face that's involved.
Hey man, that's my face, and I have no wish to be introduced to Mr
Bakers 'Hairy Hammer'... :)
Marty
umm... your reaction WAS a bit harsh, lsj, to my comments about the
archon... i was looking for reasons other than negative commentary on
those responsible for the v:ekn r&r system... but whatever...
i recently received email from the team who is setting aright the
state of the ratings and rankings... they explained to me the various
circumstances that had led up to the mess that was the current state
of the v:ekn onion, and detailed the steps they were taking to set
things aright...
had i ever received any kind of reply prior to that time, i'd never
have posted my little rant... and i'd still think lsj was a pretty
cool guy...
anyway, within a couple of days, my rating and ranking were properly
adjusted... actually, they went WAY higher than i had expected they
would... i suddenly find myself on the top 20 list -- i was just
hoping to see myself with a two digit ranking...
so i just wanted to post a followup to say that things have been set
aroiught, though i still have some questions about the accuracy and
meaningfulness of the system as it currently exists... if for no ther
reason than i play very regularly with ben peal, last years
continental champion... he has the ability to sweep a table with a
deck composed of losing scratch tickets and a crypt of baseball
cards... but somehow i'm finding myself rated and ranked a good way
ahead of him...
you just kind of know if you're better than somebody, and in this
case, i know i'm not... but the numbers say i am... statistics
lie...
but the people who are administering the system, whatever the deal is
with the system itself, as on the job, hard at work, and deserve a tip
of my hat, a thank you, and an apology for any dispersion i may have
cast on them with my post... thanks guys...
peace --
-- kevin
Kevin Scribner wrote:
> so i just wanted to post a followup to say that things have been set
> aroiught, though i still have some questions about the accuracy and
> meaningfulness of the system as it currently exists... if for no ther
> reason than i play very regularly with ben peal, last years
> continental champion... he has the ability to sweep a table with a
> deck composed of losing scratch tickets and a crypt of baseball
> cards... but somehow i'm finding myself rated and ranked a good way
> ahead of him...
*shrug* Your higher rating makes sense to me. Until this past
Saturday at Praxis Seizure: Portland, I hadn't won a rated tournament
since the Championship. That's what, nine months? While I was getting
smacked around developing Ravnos decks, you won a tournament or two, and
came in second at the Northeast Regional Qualifier. Oh, when when I did
finally win twice with Ravnos, the tournaments weren't rated. ;)
The ratings are decent for showing who's recently doing well in a local
area. As such, I think it reflects the fact that over the past 9 months,
you've done better than I have in rated tournaments.
[ quoted text not captured ]
spinney99 wrote:
>
> snip //lots of discussion of how finishing high in a tourney can make
> your rating go down... all i can say is: everyone wants that problem.
> if you're 416th in the world, and you finish 2nd at a tourney, i don't
> care how you did it, your rating will go up.
Maybe. But if you place highly in tournaments a bunch of times and then
have one or two bad tournaments, 0 VPs, 0 Game wins, your rating goes so
far down it's like you were an average player. A couple of bad tournaments
after a stellar career shouldn't make you look like an average player but
in this rating system, it does.
Fred