Sure, granted data gets more sparse the further back you get into time. Advanced statistics in the sports realm as only really gotten popular in the last twenty years. But given large amounts of time to

It does a decent enough jobs for team sports, but it definitely works better at the individual level.

Chess uses the constant of 400 based on a suggestion by Elo that a difference of 200 between players should correspond with an expected score of 0.75 for the better player. 400 is a round number that achieves

Also, please take back your delegations as the game is now over.

This would occlude meta-rule #5, right?

@rollthedice for @bengiles

@rollthedice for @carn

@rollthedice for @kipswolfe

Nice!

Just testing things out: @rollthedice

What if players don't roll?

It's fine. Maybe there's some small semantic case I'm not thinking of.

Is the second sentence a little redundant? I'm curious why you included it.

It looks like you might have found a loophole. Hmmm...

sneaky...

You could also REPLACE rule #5 since you're basically overwriting it. Unless you have a reason to keep the prior rule...

Since the LAND is rounded down prior to subtraction, a player will never reach zero LAND via this mechanism. That being said other future mechanisms could bring this into play if that's what you're going

You're right in that the selection of the official proposal is out of the player's hands, but I'm not selecting the proposals arbitrarily. I selected your proposal as yours was the only one from a player

This was completely intentional.

First, the selection process favors those who have less proposals than other proposals. Since there were folks that had zero successful proposals, anyone who had a successful proposal was eliminated. Second,