Using the tried and true [Guide to Forum Logic](http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=3055&Offset=0), let's see how certain players measure up!

[In a discussion about new options for 1v1s, à la babi wrote](http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread.aspx?ThreadID=3089&Offset=20):

*If only Gui spends less time writing nonsensical posts on the forum and make the moves faster in his ladder games, lol. Players like Gui is the reason why I detest the ladders.*

*And seriously, are you suffering inferior complex, Gui? I really dont understand how a normal person who has a life could be so passionate about a game like you.*

Scorecard:

1. Short post: +1
2. Enter discussion by attacking: +1
3. Win-lose: +.5
4. Manlove: 0
5. Jokes/dead horse: 0
6. Bad quotes/logic: +1
7. Express self at expense of other: +1
8. Disagree: 0
9. Public chat: 0
10. Backhanded insult: 0
11. Appeal to low IQ: +1

*Total score*: 5.5. Good job!

Fact check:

- Minor issue: à la babi has a ladder game going in which, instead of taking his turn, he wrote on the forum.
- Interestingly: he recently got booted from a ladder game, and said "Sorry, super busy."
- Superiority complex: He has played 1000+ 1v1s. He won 70%. But his 1v1 ladder record is 27-23, 2 games above 50%. I'd make a good guess that he played a lot of bad players in 1v1s to make his stats look good. I did the opposite: I played a lot of good players in 1v1s and didn't care about my stats.
- Passion/wasted time: 1500+ games in 4 months (à la babi: 375 games/month) vs 2700+ games in 10 months (me: 270 games/month). We both waste a lot of time. He wastes more (especially since so many of his 1v1s were against bad players).

Being around .500 on the ladder is not necessarily a bad thing (also I would like to point out that 27-23 is actually 4 games over 500, but that isn't relevant to my argument). The ladder is designed to tailor the games to people of your skill level. Therefore, since you are playing people of your skill level, you should win about 50% of the time. The exceptions to this are people at the very extremes. If you are at the very top (like yourself), you would expect to have a higher than .500 winning percentage because you are getting matched with people that are only lower than your skill level. Also, if you are at the bottom, you are matched with people better than your skill level and therefore you should lose more than 50%. Anybody else should theoretically be closer to .500 (with a little give or take depending on sample size because getting to your position obviously skews you from 500. For instance getting to the top of the ladder requires a winning percentage at the start much higher than 500).

err... scratch that math about 4 games over 500. But the rest of my post still stands.

You whine like a 9 year old. 10 points?

it's meant to be a joke, lykus. don't take it too seriously.

dr, i'm not saying winning 50% is necessarily a bad thing. it's just odd that someone who has played 1000 1v1s and won 70% of them can't do better. hhh, zibik, zaeban, you dr, unknown, me, etc...our overall and ladder winning %s are close: no inflated stats, no attempt to appear better than we are.

not just this thread, every other post you make

Damn Lykus is laying down the truth

+1 @Lykus :)

Not just me then...