Treellama wrote:In that case, the score would have been three to one. That you think 3-1 is an even score explains your posts and confusion on this "best of x" point, i guess.
Okay, you got me. I rushed through my post so I could make an appointment tonight. I think what I was trying to say was that if the teams are playing for best of x
, and both teams continue to win their respective hosted games, the team that hosted first will be guaranteed to win when they reach best of x
games before the team that hosted second. Which is why I prefer my round-of-alternated-hosting approach. But anyway, I think we both get each other's point here, let's let dead horses lie.
Treellama wrote:Well, I can only enumerate the ways you don't know what you're talking about:You don't know whether I do or do not want a ranking system
Try to give me a tiny bit of credit in remembering what people say. Tim gave a sample quote of yours, and I've probably seen another somewhere. Based on those couple of data points, I felt I could make a conclusion. If I'm wrong, then tell me, and I will be happily wrong.
Treellama wrote:You don't seem to realize that wanting something does not automatically make it happen
Let's not play the straw-man game, I've been around here long enough to know the CLIQUE's favorite rhetorical device when I see it.
Treellama wrote:You don't know how many times I have asked for ranking support in Mariusnet
I'm gonna guess, Zero. Am I wrong? Tell me, please; it would be helpful to know if PrplPplEater is refusing to add us.
Treellama wrote:You don't appear to be aware of how much work is required to create a new metaserver, or how much time and money is required to host one.
Mariusnet's software is freely available, isn't it? And I think we can find someone who can pay for a dedicated server to run it. Let's not naysay something that hasn't even been asked of the community yet.
Treellama wrote:You don't even know for a fact that nobody is working on a new metaserver, or support for rankings in the engine.
I assume that there isn't, though, because if there was you would have said so by now just to shut me up.
Treellama wrote:But somehow this doesn't stop you from contradicting an informed post of mine, and then ranting about "accepting community input" when the only thing that's being rejected here is your own uninformed mouthing off.
Wow, so that's what "mouthing off" means?
. 1. To suggest that we look into a feature that many communities enjoy having and see if it's wanted in ours.