New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Canoeist+May 22 2005, 04:49 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Canoeist @ May 22 2005, 04:49 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since I was 10th place last season, the row qualifies as a "top 10".  I can't get it into the rankings for Mr. Pirate to see until I receive the new ranking code.  So, maybe on Tuesday Sir Pirate can see my score.  <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I'm not comfortable with legitimate times being blocked from the rankings.<br /><br />Times should be able to be entered immediately, then get either a V for the top 3 (when verified), or a C for top ten (when info or code is received).<br /><br />But come on, and stop blocking legitimate times from the rankings.<br /><br />I want to SEE all the other rower's times in the rankings, not just a select few.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-NavigationHazard+May 22 2005, 05:32 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ May 22 2005, 05:32 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->how do you know in advance what kinds of times/distances are likely to require prior notification/witnesses/etc., so that you can arrange them?<br /> </td></tr></table><br />I've been wondering the same thing.<br /><br />Though there are still no public machines around here, there is currently no way of knowing what times are going have the verification requirement.<br /><br />Perhaps C2 could post them somewhere.<br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-monkey+May 20 2005, 03:00 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(monkey @ May 20 2005, 03:00 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pauls<br />No, I'm not affected by these rules, the only person I know who might be is Graham Benton but as far as I know he doesn't rank his times anyway.<br />But I might be one day <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />All the best on that.<br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As someone pointed out earlier on this thread, without the 'v' on a top 3 ranked time you may as well but 'b' for bogus. And I don't think the "blustering" on the forum will be coming from the rower, more likely from all the people that doubt the validity of the entry.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You're right, the blustering does come from the source mentioned, and is rather tiring.<br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The real point I'm trying to seriously make here is that the rankings are no more secure against determined bogus entries that they were before. I could easily get a bogus time verified if wanted to and everybody would have to believe it.<br />Perhaps I should under a different user name, then admit it, just to prove the point. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Like I said, paraphrased for specificity, before: If everyone is honest, no rules are needed, if not everyone is honest, no rules will do.<br /><br />Is air travel any <b>more safe </b>since all the idiotic rule changes made by various governments? No. <br /><br />Is air travel safe? Yes.

[[old] monkey]

So we're in agreement really Paul <br />"The ranking has for years operated purely on an honor system - by and large i think this has worked well"<br />That was C2Bill and the beginning of this thread. So no new rules needed then?<br /><br />And as we agree they don't make the rankings any safer, whats the point, just to p*ss people off?

[[old] John Rupp]

Membership ranking rules poll:<br /><a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... c=2028&hl=' target='_blank'>http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... 028&hl=</a>

[[old] Canoeist]

<!--QuoteBegin-NavigationHazard+May 22 2005, 12:32 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ May 22 2005, 12:32 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Paul, last I looked, you were on the ranking list for 2k with a strapping 9:00.<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />And, I am quite proud of that score! Did you notice it isn't 9:00.1 or 8:59.9? For our 2K cooldowns on RowPro, we set 9 min as the target for the winner. That way, nobody tries to go fast during the cool down to get a win. (We have a very competitive bunch of rowers!) It also keeps thing interesting. I have ended up tied for third with a time of 8:59.9! (We have a very competitive bunch of rowers!, or did I already say that?) <br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Paul Flack

[[old] ancho]

There have been some changes regarding the "Top times ranking requirements". Just have a look at the thread "Ranking protocol update"<br />Have a good row!