Two generic optional rules I think many users would appreciate

[FabWolf]

That would only be true if the Elo value would be reset to zero after every game. If you cary the Elo value from one game to another, it is mixing. The information of every game you play is stored inside the Elo value, the only reason to have an elo value is to have a compareable number, so that players can compare their numbers with each other. You clearly cannot or dont want to understand this. I explaned it in many different ways here, everybody can read it. I used analogies and examples. Its on you, not on me.

They are comparable and i explained why with examples of the actual eventual application of the rule, sincerely I find your objection not so crucial and your examples out of context and not appliable. I am not even suggesting "you cannot understand" like you rudely do, I have understood you dont like it, no need to keep this thing going on, we totally disagree about the balance/unbalance It could bring or not. Period. Thanks for your opinion

[Scharlach]

To add another view:
1) Hide moves history
Not a bad option. Memory can be a part of the game and browsing through the log can remove that. I sometimes check the last move (if I miss it in real time) or the last few moves, as they are visible on screen. But I consider the log just enough cumbersome that it is impractical to click around to unwind it and search through it. I feel it is a waste of time and not the point of the game.
Second, when I play against someone using the log extensively, he just looks like a strong player with a good memory. I can't tell what is it. It doesn't take away from my game experience.

2) Alternative Elo rankings
I think this should be aimed at the specific games and not generic. Hearts are famous for this discussion, but I see little point in including this for Oh Hell (as an example). Further, I would be wary of making this an option at all. I think the way of choosing a winner is usually integral to the game and not up to the players. And the Elo is strained enough with the existing options. For example gaining a high Elo is much more difficult in 1-point Backgammon than in 3-point. It is not very reliable (with the way it is used on BGA) and every new option is likely to make it worse.

Finally, some arguments why not to implement all good suggestions, but only good enough ones. First, there is the direct time cost of the implementation. Second, it introduces a feature creep and makes the whole codebase larger and more difficult to manage. And third, it makes it harder to pick the game parameters, it fragments the player base and it makes it harder to find a game with your specific preferences. For example I play little Heart and Oh Hell arena, because I consider their parameters inferior. If the alternatives were not present, I'd me more likely to just take it as it is.

[FabWolf]

Thank you for your contribution

To add another view:...

1)Thats exactly my point too, I agree with all the aspects of the matter you have pointed out. I think that giving the option to limit the log to the last move can be a solution for some games and some players

2) Yes, you are right, this doesnt apply well to any game and perhaps it would be better to be implemented in specific games, but not only hearts maybe. I see other games in which the game is naturally played with all people trying to attack the leader and caring less about placement (Catan f.e.). I thought about it as a generic option because

a) I thought It would be maybe more complex to make it specific for some games (which ones and why?)

b) I think that this matter is not so explicit for most games. Often the rules define who is the winner but dont say anything about the other people at the table. I think that considering them equally losers or not is often more a matter of taste of the people at the table than a specific aspect of a game. It surely changes the way the game is played and you are right that it activates a "bash the leader effect", but this Is often already a thing in real life tables (at least where I play). In the games I play with my friends often I dont perceive placement as much important as It is here so, while I see one method or the other more fit for some specific games, I think it is more depending from the playing tastes of the table for many games

For.the same reasons I understand that some people would never use such an option cause they like to play for placement and not just for winning

[Darbeef]

Game enhancement recommendation: I would also submit that if a player gets a delay time penalty and submitted for expulsion more than 3 times in a game they should be automatically expelled and game ended - Playing a delay style for the sake of causing frustration to other players is a cruel tactic and if someone quits they gain and the only person who suffers is the person who quit the game. Not fun at all. if this continues I will cancel my premium membership and ask for a refund.