Thanks Terry, that means that I have now qualified for it and don't have to worry about WTS or mixed - thank goodness, I has dreading having to do those ones - they are in the 'someday' list
I now also have my first 'mega' badge. woo hoo!

The "champions division" thing actually bothered me because it didn't feel complete.

These "big badges" award completeness... accomplishing a great range of things over a period of time. I feel much better about the "7 monthly badges" requirement.

Super! My first Mega-Badge. I love it.

Happy Mega-Badge Trivia!

That is a much better fix, Terry (and now I'm MUCH closer than I was.

Well, okay. I do greatly appreciate the badge though. I would like to highlight what I mentioned earlier up the thread though. I do believe the multi-category win badge/badgelet idea in WTS is a good one. I'm not sure if you caught it in the criss-cross, but here's the idea:

I wouldn't mind a badge or badgelet for WTS division winners in a certain number of different categories. Maybe a badgelet for non-champs division, a full badge for champs division. We have Movies, TV, Humanities, Animals, Religion, Sports, World, General, People, Sci & Tech, Music, Hobbies, Geography, History, and Lit. Fifteen different categories. Maybe 12? It's one thing to have good average score in WTS or to have a nice ELO. It's quite another to win a division in multiple categories in WTS. It's a real test to a person's ELO rating to try and win a category that may not be a person's specialty. I think the ELO's in these divisions are skewed to specialists. This could encourage more WTS participation I believe. Maybe we could call it the Da Vinci Badge/Badgelet or something. If it's 11, maybe the Magnificent 11.

Thanks for the badge Terry.

Thanks for the last change Terry! Just made it. Glad since Mindmelt and WAI are the only two I am missing! Love the mega badge!

I'm glad you worked it out like that, Terry, that's a good solution. I like the idea of giving GMs a bit more wriggle room while still making the badge available to non-GMs.

Now, can I interest you in a mega-mega badge for the sad people who have all nine? No? I thought not.

Ooooh, this was an exciting thread to read! The last time I looked the criteria for the Champion badge was 7 categories with champions divisions - and I was short 'Fill Me In' (though I'm working on that this month, so just under three weeks away I thought ...).

Then, reading this thread and Terry's developing thought processes, I was thinking 'yes I've got it already' ... 'no, I haven't' ... yes ... no ... maybe .... YES YES!

Only (minor)thing is it seems the badge isn't awarded automatically to qualifying players, you have to go to the Challenges area and click on the badge to actually get it. Since there are a lot of changes recently on the site and not everyone follows the discussions on the Froums, could it be awarded automatically?

It looks swell by the way!

Hopefully my 7 Monthly badges will now be sufficient to remove me from the 'doghouse'.

Two things:

1. Of course the ELO ratings are skewed towards specialists. We all have our specialties that we enjoy and we play them. We do well, we go up in rating.

2. Your idea of this new badge will only encourage more Googling in the WTS game. I, and most of the others who have a high ELO rating in WTS have earned it fairly without the use of Google. As you are already one of the ones who do use Google, I can see why you have no problem with this.


A friend of mine once told me that the hourlies have gone from "Who is the best?" to "Who Googles the fastest?" Expert has been that way for a while (I still don't see what pride there is in using Google in the hourlies. I tried when Expert was first created and it wasn't worth it.), but I keep going along earning my wins the fair way without the use of a search engine. But, I refused to agree with him on the other games. If this badge gets created, then he will be 100% right. If this badge does get implemented, I will stop playing WTS. I will not go against a bunch of Googlers in WTS.

The ELO is of minor importance to me. The ELO is there for entertainment purposes. The thing I'm concentrating on is an idea for a new badge/badgelet. To create something that makes FT better. My vision is clear on this.

Your "vision" does not make Funtrivia better. Refer back to my second point in my last post, and if the ELO rating was of minor importance to you, you wouldn't have mentioned it so many times. In fact, you wouldn't have mentioned it at all. You could have made the same point about a new badge without bringing up ELOs.

I honestly don't get this reasoning. Why is your win more fair because you may have taken a geography course or lived in more countries while I "fairly" beat you using google? The time element is the great equalizer in a game like WTS. I have to weigh whether taking extra time may beat guessing at times. Why should someone have more "pride" from getting an answer they guessed, while I took the risk to burn time to get the correct answer? So, it isn't worth it to you to Google, maybe that isn't in your skillset. If someone can google and still win the time test in a game like WTS, why are you more righteous? It really baffles me. And, yes, I am one of the higher rated WTS players and I occasionally google. So, you are already against a bunch of "Googlers". I guess that means I might move up the ranks as you will be stopping your play?

Why am I more righteous? Because I lived and died by my own knowledge. There are some games here where Googling is encouraged, but WTS is not one of them. Why do you think the time penalty was bumped up from one point per second to two points per second? It certainly wasn't to encourage looking up answers.


EDIT: No, I do not play against a bunch of Googlers now. There are a handful here and there, but if this badge that is being talked about gets created, a lot more will come out. When that happens, we might as well get rid of the hourlies as the people who do not Google in the hourlies, like myself, will be at a severe disadvantage. Either that or bump the time penalty to five points per second like I originally called for. That will stop any and all Googling in the hourlies.

Well, fight for more bumping, but as I am leading in TV right now with a 39 -- and I googled -- not sure what you are expecting. So, yes, you play against a bunch of googlers right now. That is what makes it, for some, FUN trivia! For the record, did you refuse to take open book tests in college? Or was that not letting you live and die by your own knowledge?

It's funny that you bring that up. I did refuse to use books and/or legal cheat sheets. I may not have received the best grades, but I earned what I got. I sure could have used one in Accounting, but I enjoy earning what I get when I am being timed and tested.

Hmmmmmm, but you didn't refuse to take classes where open books were allowed although others scored better through their legal methods? Are you getting the conundrum yet? Why not let everyone play with their strengths? You enjoy being timed and tested, others enjoy the thrill of the timing with Google help.

How would I know what teachers allow open book tests? That isn't something they tell you when you are registering. That makes no sense.

Anyway, I guess earning what you get on your own merit and fair play mean nothing to you. That's your prerogative. Just know that everything I have done in the hourlies was by my own brain. If I want to Google, I'll go do the Bus Ride.

Actually, we just disagree about what fair play means. And you can make snotty comment after snotty comment -- that doesn't change for me. I will still be just as educated, still have a great life, still enjoy the site immensely, and still think Google is fair play. Agree to disagree.

And maybe it is different in different colleges, but every course I took I knew exactly the kinds of exams I would have going in. That is called research. Like the kind that can be found on Google! Maybe the East Coast is different, lol. And if I want to Google? I guess I will just have to win another WTS in 39 seconds.

And in the process, cheat other players who didn't Google out of a win, bonus points, and/or a badge.

Great, find me the cheating rule?

In Ontario (thanks to the government), universities are required to outline an exact structure of marking and expectations on the first day of lectures including each assignment/test grade weighting. Any changes made to the syllabus after the fact must be done well in advance, otherwise students can demand the specifications listed from day 1.

Off-topic, but true!

From Terry:

Another addendum:

Players who accuse other players of cheating will be removed from this website with no warning. We simply cannot tolerate players being nasty to one another.

If you have a specific concern with another player, contact an administrator.


So, let's hear it? I have a specific concern.

Love Canada! My research was just asking other students who had taken the class, and now they have websites devoted to outlining class structures, but I like the idea!

"Cheating is defined as any action undertaken by a FunTrivia user to unfairly inflate or manipulate game scores, challenge scores, tournament scores, or quiz rankings in any manner. This is usually done through collusion (sharing information with someone else), or through multiple accounts (play a game with player A, then use that knowledge to help player B)."

http://www.funtrivia.com/cheating.cfm


Googling is manipulating the scores.

So would asking the person next to you if that's the case. :s



Neither of these refer to Googling.


If either of you have issues with cheating, please consult the administrators as they are the ones who would be apt to deal with such a situation. As it says in the Cheating post at the top of this forum (at http://www.funtrivia.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/310340#Post310340):



and



and

Kyle, it says "usually."

Terry? Is using Google "manipulating" the score? Has it been banned from this site? Not in the rules as of now. If not, please explain again the cheating accusation rules. Or this is all just false. Can these accusations and snotty comments just go on for hours? This is really ridiculous.

Since there is at least a 75% chance you wouldn't have got that 10/10 and you used to Google to achieve that 10/10, it is manipulating the score.