The point I was making is that if you have 50 games going, only one of those 50 games per month (undr the suggestion by Scooter) would have to be by someone rated below you. It sounds to me like it would not affect someone playing many games at all. It is a system in attempt to get rid of high ranked players who do not play any games at all in order to keep their name at the top of the leader board. Some people come here win a few games with the right people, get a high ranking, and leave, never to play again. I recently invited a player ranked slightly higher than me, who has only 5 games to his credit, to a game of Reversi. He declined the invitation. This type of system would force players like this to play at least one game a month, if invited, or lose some standing on the leader board. It would not effect active players like yourself at all. Sorry if you felt personally attacked by my previous post, I just didn't think your reasoning had any merit. I am sorry.

This all seems like overkill. Why not just hide ratings of a given game type for inactive players until they become active again?