Proposal for guidelines for reporting incomplete games

[Green]

Rick,

My comment that "Plenty do" is based on anecdotal evidence and I am happy to accept that I may have this wrong. Although we can never know and the top 10 leaders are not necessarily where the problem lie. I am not pointing fingers at any particular individuals. And I do not intend doing my own analysis, as I cannot see how I could reach any conclusions.

But, if I am mistaken then the change I am proposing will be of no inconvenience to anyone. Unless someone out there believes that playing fewer than 10% of the turns constitutes a complete game or that playing less that 25% of the turns deserves the same reward as playing something greater, then why oppose it? If you play greater than 25% of the turns, nothing changes in terms of reporting or points. And it is a guideline, so if you are philosophically opposed to it or find it too complex, just ignore it. What is the big deal?

I know nothing about FWWC and so you can have any guidelines that make sense for those titles. It is not my concern. My primary concern is PzC and validity of the statistics gathered. If these numbers are of no value, then let us just remove them and be done with. If they are of some value, let us do something that allows us to have more confidence in them.

So why the opposition? Perhaps the problem exists only in my head or perhaps it is real. We cannot know without the data and that data is not collected. If the are any good counter arguments to my proposal, I have yet to see them. But my mind is open. I am trying to find a fair solution that works. That people want to stop me is what I find puzzling.

John