I would say. Reset the score every month 1st.

And nominate a monthly winner on every 31/30/29th!

People who get tables named after them every week are the winners?

My scores are wrong too. Scoring reset fine with me.

i see no need for a regular score reset each month since it would force everybody with skill to noob tables and that can be very annoying. only if neccesary. since some score reside out of the time where we had different k variables it might be fine to do the cut since most of top200 i know are fine with it.

It might be an idea to reset the score after a certain period of idle time, though, so people can't just sit on their highest score.

I don't have a problem with a reset of standings every period. If I'm good enough at the game, I'll regain whatever rank I have. If my strategy can't defeat new players, then I'm clearly ranked too high in the first place.

This has my support, and that may not even matter. It's a good suggestion, and the table name idea sounds good, because everyone will get their chance at "fame".

I think a reset is a good idea. With fixed tables e.g. 1500;1700;1900 there won't be to many players with a high rank over 2100 who will stop playing then. So I don't think we need a reset every month.

to make things clear. its obviously no problem to gain a higher rank. but good players will hate to have to play with unskilled players every month only because someone thinks resetting a working permanent scoring system would be a good idea. My idea is to reset scores once we're pretty much settled about the scoring system and scoring system has most major flaws ruled out to get rid of dirty closets of placings due to old scoring system since some top20 didn't play a single game since scoring system was altered.

Again, if the good players are good because of some amount of skill at the game, then they'll progress through the ranks quickly enough. If they're not good (i.e., their rank was just a streak of lucky games and has nothing to do with their actual skill level) then they don't deserve to play at the higher ranked rooms.

Your argument sounds roughly like the following argument made by players who are just beginning to learn poker - "Well, I could beat you if you played better!" Resetting the rankings over some set period (A month sounds good to me tbh) eliminates the problem at the top ranks where they refuse to play because they're trying to 'preserve' their ranking, as if the ranking actually means something important in the overall sense of the game.