Ranking is rank

All,

I may be in the minority on this one, but I'm going to cast my vote against the implementation of any kind of long-term ranking system.  Three reasons: First, not everyone plays every game, so the players who play more games will be over-represented in the tally.  Second, in the event of a draw, points are divided equally and there is thus no recognition of obvious differences in skill level exhibited during play.  (For example, if I had agreed to a draw when Tony first offered it last game, I, though in possession of only two supply centers and having played erratically, would have garnered the same number of points as Tony and Leo, who obviously played a better game.)  Last, and superseding the first two, a ranking system would distract from what should be the ultimate purpose of this game, which is to keep in touch with old friends and have fun -- and occasionally to launch vicious attacks on each others' intelligence and honor.  Honestly, I don't think we need to keep track electronically of how many times we succeed or fuck up.  We already do that in our heads.

Unless, of course, we all agree to chip in to buy a prostitute for the first person to reach 1,000 points -- in which case, I'd like to point out that according to Ranking System #2, I have 20 points and Tony has 5.

-- Bill

P.S.  Did I mention that ranking is lame?