Duelist Rankings

Pretty much what the title says. It would be kinda how like we have duel records. But the best would be listed on the right like we have the top posters.

Also how we give out DP for post we should give out additional DP for getting a certain amount of wins.


Speaking of duel records can a mod give me one.

i agree

agreed

ew, no.

What is your reason for no? you cant just say no.

{TP} Simply Logic wrote:What is your reason for no? you cant just say no.

...he says to the one dissenting opinion while ignoring the affirming opinions that are equally unjustified. If the people above can just say yes or "agreed", then I can just say no.





Anyways. I will engage you.

THE NEGATIVE CASE
Rankings among members entrenches the arrogant attitudes and assumptions of superiority of those that rank higher, and the feelings of inferiority of those that rank lower. It creates a divide between members that oughtn't exist, and while it might engender competitiveness between people (supposedly, you want to keep climbing the ladder), it seems to me that the system would create an unnecessary hierarchy that allows the "strong" to reject the "weak" - silence their very legitimate ideas/perspectives or "correct" them. It biases opinions in favor of the higher-ranked members.

So a) let's not encourage the stupid arrogance that already occurs
and b) Let people create their own opinions of others without the influence of a ranking system.


THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE
You've given a plan for implementation -- but with no reasons to prefer that plan. You just said, "Hey we could do this, this seems like a good idea. Anyone agree?" And following that were noises of empty agreement. Not one actual benefit from such a proposal.

AS A PREEMPT:
You might ask of me: "BUT WAIT what about the dorm system?!!111?!111///1!?!!?one?11/11//1questionmark?1/1?!1
How can u not supprt dis but supprt teh dormz????"
Yeah I don't support them. So. Yeah. Objection go byebye.

should be based on who has the most points :3

1. This is, again, an explanation of your plan but not an advantage.
2. Going by DP is awkward for two reasons
a. People spend it. It's like, you're going to bump yourself down the ladder to spend your DP? What?
b. People get it from things that don't involve even playing the game, like recruiting. This makes such rankings pointless.


So like, either it falls to the disadvantages in my prior post, or it is, in itself, an irrelevance because no one would care who the point leader is - and if they did, it would be unhealthy for the idea of earning points to spend instead of hoard.

i think either i get it wrong or niet does............what i am getting is something kinda like a league table like football or basketball when and it is based on your dueling record the place you are in the table is based on the difference between your wins and your loses (which is not like the sports thing but the sports thing have definite number of matches we dont) if its like that i think i agree on it

effective wrote:i think either i get it wrong or niet does............what i am getting is something kinda like a league table like football or basketball when and it is based on your dueling record the place you are in the table is based on the difference between your wins and your loses (which is not like the sports thing but the sports thing have definite number of matches we dont) if its like that i think i agree on it

There are two proposed systems. One is based on "skill," "win/loss," etc. The other is based on DP.

My first criticism was on the former, my second was on the latter.

With either system, there's zero advantage presented to implementing the system. I give disadvantages to each system.

i say that the DP one is bullshit............anyway i dont mind the first one because it will give a sense of pride and challenge to our arena

I addressed that, and I'll expand on it here:

I explained that it seems to me that there's already too much pride. For example, testers are saying "wow I actually put someone in Obelisk," or "wow this person managed to beat my test deck" as if it were some surprising occurrence - as if they go in expecting to win, or the other person to not meet their standard of "good player." First, this implies they had some sort of partiality before they entered testing, which is bad; second, this is conceit, pure and simple, which is just a stupid trait for people to have; and third, this attitude leaves the same impression of superiority that creates the silencing of ideas outlined in my first criticism.

Now I'll copy/paste the original argument to make it more convenient for you to find:

Nietzsche wrote:Rankings among members entrenches the arrogant attitudes and assumptions of superiority of those that rank higher, and the feelings of inferiority of those that rank lower. It creates a divide between members that oughtn't exist, and while it might engender competitiveness between people (supposedly, you want to keep climbing the ladder), it seems to me that the system would create an unnecessary hierarchy that allows the "strong" to reject the "weak" - silence their very legitimate ideas/perspectives or "correct" them. It biases opinions in favor of the higher-ranked members.

So a) let's not encourage the stupid arrogance that already occurs
and b) Let people create their own opinions of others without the influence of a ranking system.

your big words convince me

...and my argument?

yes ,that convince me too but i think that more people should vote on it and should also give their arguements

Nietzsche wrote:

{TP} Simply Logic wrote:What is your reason for no? you cant just say no.

...he says to the one dissenting opinion while ignoring the affirming opinions that are equally unjustified. If the people above can just say yes or "agreed", then I can just say no.

As i stated before i sad it would be cool, henceforth he agreed to me thinking it would be cool. Your argument is Invalid.



Anyways. I will engage you.

THE NEGATIVE CASE
Rankings among members entrenches the arrogant attitudes and assumptions of superiority of those that rank higher, and the feelings of inferiority of those that rank lower. It creates a divide between members that oughtn't exist, and while it might engender competitiveness between people (supposedly, you want to keep climbing the ladder), it seems to me that the system would create an unnecessary hierarchy that allows the "strong" to reject the "weak" - silence their very legitimate ideas/perspectives or "correct" them. It biases opinions in favor of the higher-ranked members.

So a) let's not encourage the stupid arrogance that already occurs
and b) Let people create their own opinions of others without the influence of a ranking system.


THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE
You've given a plan for implementation -- but with no reasons to prefer that plan. You just said, "Hey we could do this, this seems like a good idea. Anyone agree?" And following that were noises of empty agreement. Not one actual benefit from such a proposal.

AS A PREEMPT:
You might ask of me: "BUT WAIT what about the dorm system?!!111?!111///1!?!!?one?11/11//1questionmark?1/1?!1
How can u not supprt dis but supprt teh dormz????"
Yeah I don't support them. So. Yeah. Objection go byebye.

Sigh.... Tournaments also promote arrogance so should we discontinue those also. The goal of this academy is to produce better duelist, henceforth arrogance will be encountered in real life or even on the dueling network. So by encountering on here first and learning to cope with it, they would be better prepared.
In schools whether elementary,middle, or highschools do teachers not post grades or say who has the best test scores. All this plan is saying is who has the best test scores. An when the test scores are posted it may push some of the students to perform better.

I said nothing this ladder being ranked by DP. No offense Thunder Chidori but that idea is horrible in my opinion. As Mr.Negative said users do buy decklist ( Why they do not go to google I have no idea) You also get duel points based on Your post so that should never happen.


Another thing back to the students performing better once they see they dont have the best test scores. The main reason why i post alot is to be one of the top posters. I'm just competitive. So the ther students will be competitive and there will be much more user activity.

{TP} Simply Logic wrote:Sigh.... Tournaments also promote arrogance so should we discontinue those also.

1. Red herring. What tournaments promote or don't promote is not the issue. This is an irrelevant statement.
2. Let's say it as relevant, though. I'd say that it can be true, but differ from rankings in degree. Tournaments aren't there for people to determine how good they are comparative to each other - they're there for the prizes at the end for those that perform the best. People recognize this, and understand that, especially in the informal, single elimination tournaments that we would randomly hold or in the themed tournaments like DKT, the people that ultimately come out on top are to be commended for their achievement, but are not to be automatically considered the "best." Relatively consistent ranking systems like ladders wouldn't have this reasoning to fall back on.
2a. Further, the ranking system has a further disadvantage in that while it may be more consistent than tournaments, it's still not consistent enough. This contributes to the false superiority that being at the top of the ladder would create, when in actuality, there are people that don't bother playing as often or consistently, for example. Like, DN. You can be at the top of their ladder, which is awesome, but there are also a bunch of people that might even be better than you that aren't, simply because they don't play rated as often. This idea is especially true with duel arena, where playing right now is a no-risk issue for the loser and means that so long as you've played a game, no matter how silly the deck is, you can report it simply because you don't lose anything for reporting and the person you played against gets points. Making the thing a zero-sum game (because even if you don't lose ladder points for losing arena games, you'll still be increasing you're competitor's points which is a comparative detriment to you) removes the incentive to play duel arena as often as people would normally do.

{TP} Simply Logic wrote:The goal of this academy is to produce better duelist

Cool.

{TP} Simply Logic wrote: henceforth arrogance will be encountered in real life or even on the dueling network. So by encountering on here first and learning to cope with it, they would be better prepared.

1. This isn't even true. People aren't going to learn to "cope with it" in any sense except to be driven away by it (which we don't want), ignore it (but we don't even have to worry if it's not a problem in the first place!), or try to correct the person that portrays the arrogance (again, it'd be awesome if we just didn't instill the arrogance in the first place.)
2. Even if this was true, this is weird reasoning. We should not be exposing people to something we think wrong because it might make them better able to deal with it in real life. Instead we should do what is in our power to make sure that this bad thing (arrogance) is minimized as much as possible.
3. Being able to cope with arrogance is not a skill inherent to better duelists. This may make members better people because they can supposedly put up with arrogance, but not necessarily better duelists.

{TP} Simply Logic wrote:In schools whether elementary,middle, or highschools do teachers not post grades or say who has the best test scores. All this plan is saying is who has the best test scores.  An when the test scores are posted it may push some of the students to perform better

1. This seems to argue that, just because some system occurs in the real world, that system must automatically be reputable. That's not true. In fact, I'm giving reasons why that style of teaching is bad in the first place, and I see no defense of why that style of teaching is good. In this case, saying that a forum ranking system is the same as the educational ranking system doesn't mean that we should accept the forum ranking system - it means we should reject the educational ranking system.
2. Actually, this archaic method of teaching, which was already not widespread to begin with, is still shrinking in popularity, at least in the United States. Why? For the same reasons as I outlined. Self-confidence. Needless hierarchies.

{TP} Simply Logic wrote:I said nothing this ladder being ranked by DP. No offense Thunder Chidori but that idea is horrible in my opinion. As  Mr.Negative said users do buy decklist ( Why they do not go to google I have no idea) You also get duel points based on Your post so that should never happen.

Okay glad we agree

{TP} Simply Logic wrote:Another thing back to the students performing better once they see they dont have the best test scores. The main reason why i post alot is to be one of the top posters. I'm just competitive. So the ther students will be competitive and there will be much more user activity.

1. Just because you are competitive doesn't mean others are. For example, I completely dgaf about the top posters chart and think that trying to boost post count only creates needless clutter on the forums because people say things for post count instead of from an actual interest.
2. Their wanting to rise in standings doesn't mean they will get better.
3. They want to get better anyways; that's supposedly why they're here. A ladder shouldn't make a difference.
4. I would say the disadvantages I outline far outweigh the marginal gain in user activity. User activity is only good under a positive atmosphere - then we get more positivity! But I'm saying we won't have a positive atmosphere; in fact, things will be worse. So not positivity, but negativity. Which we don't like.

So yeah.

i wasn't sure what to answer but Nietzsche argument convince me (still can't belive it) , and i think he is right , this will bring more argument on the table , more than ever .

And at you can't compare this academy to school xD , there is a lot of diffrence but i don't need to explain it's kinda obvious , and this site is made duelist to prepare duelist for the dueling word , where all arrogant are there , to get them prepare shouldn't we give them a better place so they can improve ?

What make u think a player become arrogant ? Obvious when he beat you , he will start talking all around about it and there they become arrogant , so in here when try to make duelist better so when they go to the dueling ground , they can give a challange to other so they earn the respect .

P.S. : @ Simply , if your dueling record was negative would you put this idea there ??? when u answer put something to read , don't just say YES and NO , you say it more than Daniel Bryan xD

Nietzsche's argument is implying that the arrogance is noticeable throughout the website. I see some arrogance, but it's all in fun, not in any demeaning way. It's certainly not noticeable.

There's a reason why newbies are often overlooked. Because most of the time, their ideas have been thought about, already, and turns out that the ideas aren't very good. Someone who's earned their superior status should look at things objectively. 

In truth, some are inferior. Treating them like they are on equal footing is lying to them. Pandering to the weak doesn't make them better. They aren't children. They won't get depressed, they'll get more passionate, or so I hope. That is no excuse to deny recognition to those that earn
it. There's a reason why they're inferior; that's where we come in. You see posts around the site, along the lines of, "I wanna get into the Obelisk dorm!"
They have passion. That's something you won't have (as much) when you don't have a ranking system. 
The assumption that negativity will be apparent throughout the whole site is incorrect. There will be negativity, with or without a ranking system. The ranking system doesn't cause negative activity. If DN didn't have a ranking system, I wouldn't be on as much. I don't think I'm causing negativity from going on the site.
You don't just want to get better, you want to be recognized, or affirmed, by something. Or at least, I, and others, do.
I'm not saying this ranking system is perfect. I would make changes to it, but you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

Sorry if some of the sentences are sorta janky, this was all typed out on mobile.

Nietzsche wrote:1. This is, again, an explanation of your plan but not an advantage.
2. Going by DP is awkward for two reasons
   a. People spend it. It's like, you're going to bump yourself down the ladder to spend your DP? What?
   b. People get it from things that don't involve even playing the game, like recruiting. This makes such rankings pointless.


So like, either it falls to the disadvantages in my prior post, or it is, in itself, an irrelevance because no one would care who the point leader is - and if they did, it would be unhealthy for the idea of earning points to spend instead of hoard.

i wasn't serious
BTW i got most of my points from dueling

Since Nietzsche's post is obviously causing a lot of controversy, I will analyze what he said...AKA write an essay on the subject. I'm sure most of you won't even read this through and through, just because of the bricks of text you're about to see.

THE NEGATIVE CASE
Rankings among members entrenches the arrogant attitudes and assumptions of superiority of those that rank higher, and the feelings of inferiority of those that rank lower. It creates a divide between members that oughtn't exist, and while it might engender competitiveness between people (supposedly, you want to keep climbing the ladder), it seems to me that the system would create an unnecessary hierarchy that allows the "strong" to reject the "weak" - silence their very legitimate ideas/perspectives or "correct" them. It biases opinions in favor of the higher-ranked members.

This part of his statement can in no way be disproved. Don't any of you deny it, if two people: one with a 2-6 Duel Record and one with a 8-0 Duel Record, both challenged you to a (fun) duel, your mind would automatically jump to the guy with the 8-0 record. I actually remember, right here, in this academy, not long ago, I saw with my own eyes, one member brushing aside another duelist (a Slifer, if I remember correctly), and his exact reason for doing so was "his Duel Record's not that good, anyway." YES, this was BEFORE this Duel Record thing was EVEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED. What? you may ask...and you'd be completely right. That is a concrete example of discrimination.

It's all part of human nature to overlook the weak and try to blend in with the strong. Why? Because we all want to be strong, and thus, we try to mingle with those that we want to be like. Those who are weak don't even want to be with the weak; even they attempt to be strong, correct? Thus, the weakest duelist in the academy would still not want to face another weak duelist. He/she would likely want to face someone who is much better, in an attempt to get better at the game. And that's the right way to approach a problem in the case of the bad duelist.

My point? The weaker duelists will always get overlooked by the other weak duelists, while the strong duelists will only want to duel them to get easy wins for their Duel Record. Having Duel Records will just be a way to have the strong guys brag, and have the weak guys be forced to announced to the world, HEY, I SUCK! DUEL ME FOR FREE WINS!

THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE
You've given a plan for implementation -- but with no reasons to prefer that plan. You just said, "Hey we could do this, this seems like a good idea. Anyone agree?" And following that were noises of empty agreement. Not one actual benefit from such a proposal.

Ehh, I disagree with this one. Half of the academy - the half with Ras, Obelisks, and Testers, would love to have the opportunity to prance around, showing off their 20-0 Duel Record to anyone in reach. In fact, many of them will only get that marvelous Duel Record by picking on the weaker fellows: the guys with negative Duel Records or Slifers.

Now, the reason why Dorms are different from this is that it doesn't impact the SLIFERS negatively. Being placed in Slifer doesn't mean you fail at the game, it means you're here to get better. In the Duel Arena, even if it's Obelisk vs. Slifer, and the Slifer loses, so what? He doesn't lose anything. But for the Duel Record, the Slifer WILL lose something, and it'll come to the attention of virtually every good duelist that, Hey! I can get easy wins from this guy!

How on earth can the Slifer get BETTER (which is the point of being placed in Slifer) if all of his duels are likely gonna be loses, because the big guys will be picking on him? It's just human nature to want to behave like this, picking on the little guys to bolster your own skill. You may all pretend to be noble and say, "Oh, no, I would NEVER do that." ...Don't kid yourself. I bet only 1 out of 99 people in this academy could resist the temptation to crush 10 Slifers and then claim you're the best duelist in the academy.

AS A PREEMPT:
You might ask of me: "BUT WAIT what about the dorm system?!!111?!111///1!?!!?one?11/11//1questionmark?1/1?!1
How can u not supprt dis but supprt teh dormz????"

The Dorm system is completely justified. A Duel Record shows how good you are against the whole academy, while the Dorms represent how well you did in one. Single. Duel. Besides, there is NO HARM whatsoever in being in Slifer Dorm! Do you lose DP? No! Do people ignore you? Absolutely not! Slifers are what hold the academy in one piece. Imagine what would happen if all the Slifers were to disappear for one week. The place would smash, crash, and burn!

Changing the subject just a tiny bit, but do you remember how I said the guys with bad Duel Records would get picked on a lot by the guys with good ones? Yeah, well, you guys are probably thinking about, "Well, wouldn't the Slifers get picked on, too?" And that is partially true. They do kinda fall as victims to Duel Arenas and Tournaments, and stuff. Sometimes. BUT! The major difference is it DOES NOT COME AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SLIFER! You don't LOSE Duel Points for losing in Duel Arena! Your dorm doesn't get DOWNGRADED if you lose a duel! There is NOTHING that can happen to the Slifer, even if he/she loses 100 duels in a row.

MEANWHILE, in Duel Record Land, if you have a 0-100 Duel Record, you'd probably just wanna hide your face and go home, never to be seen again by the public. I wouldn't blame them. You basically showed the entire academy that (presumably) you lost against every single member of the academy. While being in Slifer merely means you lost against ONE tester...and maybe made some misplays or had a mediocre deck.

I'm sure most of you didn't read this gigantic essay of a post, so I'll put this to you in short: I no like this idea!

In no way is this post to be offensive, but it may sound a bit harsh.
I'm usually the comic relief character like 90% of the time, but this is just outrageous.
And in no way do I believe that my being transcends yours in pointing out your mistakes.

LevitatingManicotti wrote:Nietzsche's argument is implying that the arrogance is noticeable throughout the website. I see some arrogance, but it's all in fun, not in any demeaning way. It's certainly not noticeable.

You, sir, are the epitome of an arrogant and ignorant person. You justify your own actions by saying arrogance either doesn't exist or it isn't a bad thing.

LevitatingManicotti wrote:There's a reason why newbies are often overlooked. Because most of the time, their ideas have been thought about, already, and turns out that the ideas aren't very good. Someone who's earned their superior status should look at things objectively. 

In truth, some are inferior. Treating them like they are on equal footing is lying to them. Pandering to the weak doesn't make them better. They aren't children. They won't get depressed, they'll get more passionate, or so I hope. That is no excuse to deny recognition to those that earn
it. There's a reason why they're inferior; that's where we come in. You see posts around the site, along the lines of, "I wanna get into the Obelisk dorm!"

Really? Some are inferior? Being objective? They aren't very good? This statement itself is insanely condescending. You try to sound like you're a nice person by acting as the "luminary". Especially the proof about people wanting to get into a higher dorm. That itself is ridiculous. People want to get into a higher dorm to feel that they are "good" at this game ---- to have that "label" for their own self-interest, same as ranking. The ranking itself actually has no meaning if you think about it. Nietzsche always tries to get me tested but honestly there is no point. And if you want me to explain to you how condescending people are just because of their position I can give you ample proof just in ONE duel with another member in this academy.

>People who are superior
WHO ARE YOU. Honestly, I have no idea why you would even say this. Is this the slavery era of the United States? Is this the norm? People are superior to others and should then be able to say others are just "aren't very good"? Woah! I didn't know we took a time machine and traveled back in time.
All kidding aside. Really. Really. If you're so objective how about you judge me because of my ranking and tell me I'm bad. Woah. Must be pro huh? Being absolutely 100% objective is impossible. We're only human. Don't be arrogant and think when we make them feel inferior we are only being objective.

Potentially Bad Word:

Please don't. Don't talk about little/no arrogance and it's all in the fun then go and talk about how they actually suck. That's just...not helping your case. And since you're so superficial/judgmental how about we have a little fun then after this? Only if you disagree with my post of course. You can PM me; then it's my turn to be arrogant.

LevitatingManicotti wrote:They have passion. That's something you won't have (as much) when you don't have a ranking system.

Or. You could just strive to be better in everything you do. How you find a passion? You enjoy the thing you do no matter where you are. Do you honestly think people who volunteer care about some ranking system? No. They don't. They believe they are doing the right thing and have a passion for helping other people out. The jerk who sucks up to people because they want a name for themselves in no way is the same as the considerate person who everyone likes. One does it for the label;the other does it for his passion/submission (source: me <3)
 

LevitatingManicotti wrote:The assumption that negativity will be apparent throughout the whole site is incorrect. There will be negativity, with or without a ranking system. The ranking system doesn't cause negative activity. If DN didn't have a ranking system, I wouldn't be on as much. I don't think I'm causing negativity from going on the site.
You don't just want to get better, you want to be recognized, or affirmed, by something. Or at least, I, and others, do.

Negativity is always apparent. It is always the status quo. But that doesn't mean we should just ignore it. We can minimize negativity to an extent. No need to enhance it. By just merely stating it exists is the attitude of an ignorant person. (And just for a quick counterexample, I honestly don't care about being recognized or affirmed by anything as small as a label.) If you really want to be recognized there, yeah go wear a name tag saying "RECOGNIZE ME PLEASE, I'M OBELISK!" or by ranking. Sure maybe people want a dorm/ranking, but if there were no dorms/rankings then people would respect others because of their personality and/or skill. Not some silly label. DN's ranking system sure. I'll take it as a valid point, just for you. Because it helps you. I have no way to verify that this is true, but I'll take it. But people in unranked who are high rated and testing usually leave a "only 1000+" or something message because they believe people who are rated lower suck. Similarly, people with low rankings rarely accept people with insanely high rankings because they are portrayed as superior. And you may say, "OF COURSE, that's how it's supposed to be!" But I'm talking about unrated. Rated in fact, has has less to do with rating but much rather win:loss (coming from experience). If you want evidence, I can provide of course. It's not a ranking/dorm that people should respect, but the person themselves. If you think they're inferior based on their ranking, then you may have already made a mistake in assessing them.

LevitatingManicotti wrote:I'm not saying this ranking system is perfect. I would make changes to it, but you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

Woah an idiom! No, really. No system can be perfect unless you're in a perfect world. You can't just say, "It's not perfect and neither is the other system, so why not do my system?" You know. Racism can't be solved even if we abolish slavery so let's just keep slavery! Ignorance is truly bliss huh. And still. Throwing a baby out of the bathwater could save the baby. If you didn't throw that hard. There could be a hair dryer falling into the water and doing so would save him/her.

LevitatingManicotti wrote:Sorry if some of the sentences are sorta janky, this was all typed out on mobile.

I appreciate the time you took to try to justify your side of the argument, however much I may have talked negatively about it. I'll try to respond to other things later.

"Disagreement produces debate, but dissent produces dissension."

LevitatingManicotti wrote:Nietzsche's argument is implying that the arrogance is noticeable throughout the website. I see some arrogance, but it's all in fun, not in any demeaning way. It's certainly not noticeable.

I notice it and am bothered by it, whether or not you have.

LevitatingManicotti wrote:There's a reason why newbies are often overlooked. Because most of the time, their ideas have been thought about, already, and turns out that the ideas aren't very good. Someone who's earned their superior status should look at things objectively. In truth, some are inferior. Treating them like they are on equal footing is lying to them. Pandering to the weak doesn't make them better. They aren't children.

I understand some can lose more often than you. And not treating them as if they are on equal footing is okay, but only if, say, they come to you from a position of "help me I think you're better than me and want you to teach me." But that only justifies helping them as if they needed improvement in any one area that you happen to be good at. Either way, disrespect or saying things like, "I could beat all of you" - which I've seen frequently - is just mean.

LevitatingManicotti wrote:They won't get depressed, they'll get more passionate, or so I hope. That is no excuse to deny recognition to those that earn
it. There's a reason why they're inferior; that's where we come in. You see posts around the site, along the lines of, "I wanna get into the Obelisk dorm!"
They have passion. That's something you won't have (as much) when you don't have a ranking system. 

The "better" players clearly need more recognition! and by that I mean they don't. And they can get it other ways.
Being affirmed by something doesn't have to be from some "official" system - others can think highly of me, and I'll be happy about it.

LevitatingManicotti wrote:The assumption that negativity will be apparent throughout the whole site is incorrect. There will be negativity, with or without a ranking system. The ranking system doesn't cause negative activity. If DN didn't have a ranking system, I wouldn't be on as much. I don't think I'm causing negativity from going on the site.
You don't just want to get better, you want to be recognized, or affirmed, by something. Or at least, I, and others, do.
I'm not saying this ranking system is perfect. I would make changes to it, but you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

Sorry if some of the sentences are sorta janky, this was all typed out on mobile.[/quote]

I'm not saying that negativity is especially unique to the system, but I am saying that the system does foster negativity.
Repeated: Being affirmed by something doesn't have to be from some "official" system - others can think highly of me, and I'll be happy about it.

My sentences are jankier.

FutureOracle, you sir, have just gained my eternal respect.

Thought wrote:Since Nietzsche's post is obviously causing a lot of controversy, I will analyze what he said...AKA write an essay on the subject. I'm sure most of you won't even read this through and through, just because of the bricks of text you're about to see.

THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE
You've given a plan for implementation -- but with no reasons to prefer that plan. You just said, "Hey we could do this, this seems like a good idea. Anyone agree?" And following that were noises of empty agreement. Not one actual benefit from such a proposal.

Ehh, I disagree with this one. Half of the academy - the half with Ras, Obelisks, and Testers, would love to have the opportunity to prance around, showing off their 20-0 Duel Record to anyone in reach. In fact, many of them will only get that marvelous Duel Record by picking on the weaker fellows: the guys with negative Duel Records or Slifers.

Now, the reason why Dorms are different from this is that it doesn't impact the SLIFERS negatively. Being placed in Slifer doesn't mean you fail at the game, it means you're here to get better. In the Duel Arena, even if it's Obelisk vs. Slifer, and the Slifer loses, so what? He doesn't lose anything. But for the Duel Record, the Slifer WILL lose something, and it'll come to the attention of virtually every good duelist that, Hey! I can get easy wins from this guy!

How on earth can the Slifer get BETTER (which is the point of being placed in Slifer) if all of his duels are likely gonna be loses, because the big guys will be picking on him? It's just human nature to want to behave like this, picking on the little guys to bolster your own skill. You may all pretend to be noble and say, "Oh, no, I would NEVER do that." ...Don't kid yourself. I bet only 1 out of 99 people in this academy could resist the temptation to crush 10 Slifers and then claim you're the best duelist in the academy.

I read what you said. Just going to isolate this part and point out that what I was saying in your quote is that the first post in the thread, saying it'd be cool to have duelist rankings, doesn't actually explain why it would be cool. Except then I was asked to explain why it wouldn't be cool. So at that point there's literally only reasons against the rankings and no reasons for it.