|
I'm not complaining about the way it's done, by MouseAdventure or by any other competition. I'm simply arguing against what I see as the illogicality of it. Alex, you pointed out some very logical positions, namely, that there were 3 teams ahead of them, and that there were 3 separate scores ahead of them.
My logical points are that there were 2 different scores ahead of them, not three. That the place number following 2nd is 3rd, even if there are two 2nds. And that they did the third best of any teams in the two-day competition. That two teams did precisely as well as each other does not, in my personal book for which I critcize no one else, mean that they did fourth as well ... even though 3 individual teams did better.
The whole point of this game of semantics on my part is not to complain, but simply to pump up the standings of some friends of mine who got the title of "fourth" when no title of "third" was given at all. No complaint about the scoring methods of MouseAdventure was meant to be implied; simply a point about general scoring logic and semantics.
Oh, but I still think a tie-breaker during the actual awards ceremony would be fun. It's not like randomness is a thing unseen in MouseAdventure quests (see, for example, the recent David Koenig trivia quest during the Saturday night competition). It would be entertaining, and then each team would be given their own unique, final ranking. No big deal either way, just a bit of fun.
As for including a 4th place in the, um, first place ...well, I personally think it's kinda on the lame side. Wasn't there even a fifth place awarded, or did I imagine that? In any event - 1st, 2nd, 3rd are the traditional "winners circle" places of the vast majority of races and competitions. I'm not saying that MouseAdventure must stick to that tradition. If it makes more teams happy to get recognition and get prizes, that's pretty cool. Heck, I'm even in approval of the decision to "retire" the so-called Masters so that others can have a shot at winning. The more people who win, the better. Winning is fun, no doubt about it.
But I find it odd that M.A. will bend tradition to award a 4th or 5th place, and yet will stick with the tradition of "skipping" a lower placement award when there's a tie at a higher one.
Still, glass half empty or glass half full? True that 3 teams did better; also true that they got the 3rd highest score. Whether that entitles them to be called "third place" is an irrelevant matter of semantics. No big deal either way.
|