And Jait, you sad on the high score without playing for a very long time with the advantage of making it twice as hard for people to catch up.

I really don't feel sorry for your plea for fairness. You used this rating preservation strategy of not playing to keep your high score. Thousands of people see this as unfair and thats louder than the complaint of one inactive player.

I'm getting to see Ryan's point. But 1st: I apologize for the "angry thing". I know you put a lot of free time into this. 2nd: I was actually not playing anymore because there was no 2200 table. And, I admit, secondly because I wanted a table (which should be widely known by now ;)). I'll go read about that ranking system now, see if I can find it somewhere (maybe you could help me out, Ryan? As I understand we have an adjusted ELO-system?). I still think having more tables with different limits would make the system fairer, but first I'll inform myself...

As stated above, I for one was not angered but surprised by the decrease and am glad this thread has generated responses. I recognize your take Ryan about it being a beta free game, and all of us do love it and you for making it...but here is the question that I hope you respond to: why no warning at all beforehand in either the forum or news section? I for one would have gladly dusted off my top account and played had I known it was coming, but to hell with the points.

My argument is you may not realize it, but you have created a community here full of the same issues as "real" communities; people you like, people you don't, cheats, liars, friends, etc, and yes, people's senses of fairness and inequity DO come into play. Now if you want to run it Saddamesque with an iron fist that is certainly your right as creator, but if you relish the participatory nature of multiplayer games as I'm sure you must, my opinion is that you should have given players the choice of perhaps losing these points in an actual game, as not all of us earned all our points under the old system. If possible, please send out fair warning before next scoring adjustment...

So what exactly is the point of having a high rated account if you're afraid to play with it? Last time I checked you don't win anything for being in 1st.

there are 0 gains.. which is exactly y i m confortable with resetting all the scores (since we want to be fair to everyone - make it fair but properly, not sm half done solution)...

u should learn to read more carefully to what is said odlanor... i m not the point in the thread... so y ru trying to make me the point? how will that contribute to the topic? A: it wont....

Haha, I don't mind Jaits rant there, just don't want my point (and hopefully my petition for Ryan's response) to be lost in the shuffle. Again, please just let us know if in the event of another scoring adjustment, it would be possible to give us a date/time for it? For people (myself included) who have been frustrated in not getting high ranking players together on a table, I bet you we would see a TON of action!

Funk2: The reason I didn't say anything is because everyone would have just played one game and the adjustment would not have mattered. The adjustment rewarded accounts that were played over the last 7 days... think of it that way.

Jait: The rating system will measure skill in the long run as long as people keep playing when the get a high score. As far as I'm concerned a lot of people on the top 50, including myself, got on a lucky streak for 5 games and stopped playing. This is not representative of skill. It would actually make sense to have a daily deduction of X rating points to make this more accurate.

Also Jait, you're the one doing the most complaining and this is why I don't really care.

kk fine.. i wont complain any more (if u can call this complaining- which it surely isnt in my eyes.. but hey, each man to his own), nor will i post again in the forums with my opinion on things... gd luck, i hope it goes like u envision it...

Yep, I hear you Ryan...but just mull over my point that if we are a participatory community in your eyes, you may want to inform us in advance before any other adjustments...

As a quick addendum to my prior post, I didn't want to suggest that Ryan is a power-hungry dictator over this great game (hope you took no offense), but that the scoring adjustment didn't really strike me as consistent with the democratic nature of everything else Ryan had built into its growing processes at this point (i.e., a very responsive ideas section, an open and engaging chatbox during games, etc.).