just because ...
... i am in a cranky mood and feel like railing about something.
it amuses me that i see this listing on the 'road to premier' on the BAT web page:
1659-1875 1875 1875 MORGAN CHRIS PATRICK
well, its nice to even be on that list at all. kinda cool, actually.
except that i'm not 1875. i'm 1882. i am 1882 because the formula we use to calculate rating SAYS i am 1882. (whether or not i actually believe i am worthy of that is another story.) WTF? oh wait, i should read on ...
NOTE: BAT 2012 follows standard NASPA practice in accepting as a qualifying peak rating any rating which appears in a published ratings list during the qualification period (in this case, 11 April 2011 to 19 March 2012) or is a final (i.e. not an interim mid-tournament rating computed in a split-rated tournament) rating (not including acceleration points).
so apparently i lost 7 pts. in the eyes of BAT because i happened to gain 7 acceleration pts. in the past 1-day.
have i mentioned before that i think this policy is pretty much the stupidest thing i have ever heard of? and this isnt some NASPA thing, either - it was stupid back when the NSA did it too. its stupid because it makes ZERO sense to try and create a system to evaluate ratings that attempts to be objective and then subjectively apply the results of your formula. if the math says youre 1882, then by god youre 1882. saying someone's rating somehow counts less than someone else's is ridiculous. all the pts. count.
this is one reason why i wont ever play BAT. to be honest, i dont feel inclined to ever play any tourney that uses that criteria, because i'm inherently skeptical of anyone who would adhere to such a dumb policy at all.
given what a bad mood i'm in, that post was sort of mild.
it amuses me that i see this listing on the 'road to premier' on the BAT web page:
1659-1875 1875 1875 MORGAN CHRIS PATRICK
well, its nice to even be on that list at all. kinda cool, actually.
except that i'm not 1875. i'm 1882. i am 1882 because the formula we use to calculate rating SAYS i am 1882. (whether or not i actually believe i am worthy of that is another story.) WTF? oh wait, i should read on ...
NOTE: BAT 2012 follows standard NASPA practice in accepting as a qualifying peak rating any rating which appears in a published ratings list during the qualification period (in this case, 11 April 2011 to 19 March 2012) or is a final (i.e. not an interim mid-tournament rating computed in a split-rated tournament) rating (not including acceleration points).
so apparently i lost 7 pts. in the eyes of BAT because i happened to gain 7 acceleration pts. in the past 1-day.
have i mentioned before that i think this policy is pretty much the stupidest thing i have ever heard of? and this isnt some NASPA thing, either - it was stupid back when the NSA did it too. its stupid because it makes ZERO sense to try and create a system to evaluate ratings that attempts to be objective and then subjectively apply the results of your formula. if the math says youre 1882, then by god youre 1882. saying someone's rating somehow counts less than someone else's is ridiculous. all the pts. count.
this is one reason why i wont ever play BAT. to be honest, i dont feel inclined to ever play any tourney that uses that criteria, because i'm inherently skeptical of anyone who would adhere to such a dumb policy at all.
given what a bad mood i'm in, that post was sort of mild.