Reply to: 257187 by mainlake2
<< Prev 257251 Next >>
Reply | Post New
well here's my fountain change on THIS one. Read just the end paragraph for the short and sweet version
i do agree with main's argument (therefore i also agree with those that agree with him) but of course, now, its a matter of TO WHAT EXTENT.
First off let me say that i believe what mainlake is refering to is when the player's RECORDS are the same. Players can have the same amount of points while having different records. ie: Player 1: 3-0, Player 2: 2-3. That's where the first 2 rules in the help topic come into play
In general, i do agree with the idea that it is not truly fair the way it is currently set up. But the problem when it comes to designating a tie-breaker is that nomatter what, there really isnt a way to make it truly fair unless u accommodate for each player's specific feelings and requirements...which in turn would break the rules on numerous occasions. If for example it were as main and papa suggest (not saying i disagree with their idea) then we'd get a handful of people who say that "they beat better players than their opponent did and jus cuz they lost to THEM shouldnt mean they lose the tiebreaker" oss. Eventually we all just run around in circles.
But seeing as how this is NOT a sporting league (although the comparison was smart, when comparing it to a cards and games league it loses its power lol) i think a slightly different approach could be taken to ensure max possible fairness.......
If rules 1 and 2 of help topic 2623 are irrelevant in the situation at hand (If one or more players have the exact same record) then, if at all possible, it probably would be most helpful to tally the tiebreakers, including the ones suggested: Head2Head play, who beat higher ranked players (rule 3), Higher ranked player at the start of the division, and perhaps anything else that can be thought up. Whoever gets the majority of the tiebreakers takes it home. How do u guys think that would work, and tell me if i'm like.... way off or something...
basically all im saying is...The point being made is valid, but simply discarding the current rule and replacing it with another as suggested only seems to be a temporary solution