grenv: Quote №1: "In this case he will be twice as slow because he has twice as many games"
That's not true. You can't automatically assume that. You don't know how this player will perform with 200 games. All you can tell for sure is how he actually did so far, but not how he will do from now on. Maybe this player will get organized and starts playing even more than before, bringing his AR to say... 2! Why not? You can't say it's impossible. What if those first 100 games are "leftovers" from old 2005-2006 "30-days-per-move" tournaments and the poor guy is stucked with last-minute-moving oponents and it isn't really his fault for his low AR. Maybe he simply has no chance to play faster because he has to wait for his oponents to move. What if those new 100 games are his favourite kind of game and he spends all day clicking from now on?

How about the oposite case? Say we have a relatively quick player. But (such things happen all the time) poor guy gets hospitalized and his AR begins to suffer. In this case we should implement not a single number (the AR), but a graph (!) showing how a player's AR changes.

I see your idea is to display *current* ability. But you can't do that on a turn based game site where real people participate. They eat, sleep, take a p00p, do shopping etc. These are not machines that spend 24 hours per day in clicking. Instead, all we have different styles of playing. Some get early in the morning and do 20-30 clicks. Some use their lunch break. Some people suffer from insomnia and play all night. Others can afford to play all day... How can be defined their *current* speed?

Again, I repeat: do not assume. The most honest thing we should do is to quote how this guy has been doing so far.

Quote №2: "I would argue "# of moves per day" implies an average"
Yes, you could argue. But again, you wouldn't be right. If you really meant it, you should say it. I tried discreetly to skip this issue, but since you insist showing...

Forget it. I'm not going to argue with you. I'm tired of this.