Originally posted by RagwortThanks, I stand corrected. Your point makes sense. Solo-clans are back on the menu. Any further objections?
Yes clan is a collective noun but a word in favour of one man clans.
As a 1900-2000 player I am in the top rated banded tournaments yet am routinely expected to play 2400 players some of whom have been outed as engines. If I join a clan with similar rated players that cuts down my potential opponents. If I offer open invites anyone can pick them up and it ...[text shortened]... rrangement of electrons known as the clan table. When time allows one man clans can be expanded.
Originally posted by moonbus1. We are not going to get consensus on basing clan standings on ratings because a number of people do not believe that this will put a stop to dead players, sandbagging, and collusion. What most posters want to see is a rule which says "no dead players, no sandbagging, no collusion etc." and punitive action for infractions - moonbus
1. We are not going to get consensus on basing clan standings on ratings because a number of people do not believe that this will put a stop to dead players, sandbagging, and collusion. What most posters want to see is a rule which says "no dead players, no sandbagging, no collusion etc." and punitive action for infractions.
2. I don't see the point of ca ...[text shortened]... d like to get out of it.
4. Is mentioned in my summary of a framework for clan play (item 3).
Because these are exactly the type of players that benefit from sandbagging, dumping clan challenges, throwing games in tournaments to artificially reduce their rating prematurely resigning games in clan challenges that are numerically won etc
If one truly wants to reform the system then basing clan standings on ratings is THE ONLY viable solution. Punitive action either in the future or retrospectively will do nothing to prevent this. All they can proffer is a vindictive attitude which as you have eloquently pointed out to them does not even address the systems failings either because they do not understand why a ratings system will benefit or they are too biased and partisan to begin with. Follow the money, who are the ones opposing this idea? the very ones who stand to lose out if its implemented, the sandbaggers themselves.
Although my friend lemondrop has made a success of a one man clan I tend to agree, however, clans must begin somewhere. Perhaps a proviso that one must have at least 4 players before one can start to take challenges.
4. Is mentioned in my summary of a framework for clan play (item 3) - moonbus
Yes this is a prerequisite, there must be a separate clan rating, but again, without it being linked to a system based on ratings it will make no sense because they will simply repeat their shenanigans within the system and keep their ratings artificially low. A system based on ratings will prevent this because as you state, there will be no incentive to keep ratings artificially low, its self defeating prospect.
I repeat it, the only way that sandbagging and other blatant abuses of the system will be addressed is by a system based on the rise and fall of a clans ratings, rewarding good chess, not outright skulduggery.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMost posters here agree that the current ranking system is "daft" and urgently needs revamping. What some posters have perhaps not yet realised is that simply awarding points for wins comes nowhere near to repairing what is wrong and would not salvage what ought to be preserved (namely, the flexibility and diversity of the clan system).
1. We are not going to get consensus on basing clan standings on ratings because a number of people do not believe that this will put a stop to dead players, sandbagging, and collusion. What most posters want to see is a rule which says "no dead players, no sandbagging, no collusion etc." and punitive action for infractions - moonbus
Because these ...[text shortened]... m based on the rise and fall of a clans ratings, rewarding good chess, not outright skulduggery.
Explaining how ratings-based rankings would work has not persuaded everyone here that that would be sufficient to stop abuses of various sorts. The calls have been loud and clear that whatever ranking system or systems is/are to be put in place, additional measures are desired to define, monitor, control, and rectify abuses. Read the writing on the wall, Robbie: it's flashing neon-fluorescent.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour friend Lemon Drop has resigned 20+ games in the first 6 days of the new year
1. We are not going to get consensus on basing clan standings on ratings because a number of people do not believe that this will put a stop to dead players, sandbagging, and collusion. What most posters want to see is a rule which says "no dead players, no sandbagging, no collusion etc." and punitive action for infractions - moonbus
Because these ...[text shortened]... m based on the rise and fall of a clans ratings, rewarding good chess, not outright skulduggery.
06 Jan 17
Originally posted by MctaytoA clan-in-the-making, that is, a founder who has not yet attracted followers, is one thing; a solo-clan (permanently seeking no followers) is slightly different. Of course, we should allow a founder some time to attract followers. If he attracts none, well, that's a clear enough message in itself.
Several times it has been said that clans should have minimum numbers to be counted as a clan frequently 5 or more muted.
There is no basis for this as to start a clan you are but one member.
You then attempt to recruit members some quicker than others.
Surely as long as your clan plays by the same rules as larger clans then you shouldn't be kicked aside ...[text shortened]... drop has proved that numbers are not required under the current system to climb the greasy pole.
See ragwort's post why solo-clans make sense.
Originally posted by moonbussimply because it has not persuaded them does not mean that it is not a prerequisite.
Most posters here agree that the current ranking system is "daft" and urgently needs revamping. What some posters have perhaps not yet realised is that simply awarding points for wins comes nowhere near to repairing what is wrong and would not salvage what ought to be preserved (namely, the flexibility and diversity of the clan system).
Explaining how rat ...[text shortened]... ntrol, and rectify abuses. Read the writing on the wall, Robbie: it's flashing neon-fluorescent.
look at the idea of unhinging clan rankings from other rankings, this will simply suffer the same type of abuse, players will throw games, artificially reduce their clan rating and we are left wondering what the point of doing it was. It must be made clear and crystal clear that unless the scoring system is based on the rise and fall of a clans collective ELO then all other talk is moot to boot.
Originally posted by padgerwhy are you telling me? I want to address the practice by adopting an ELO based system that would prevent players from doing so and unlike some of those who have expressed an opinion I am not so partisan. You want to get rid of collusion, sandbagging and people throwing games then adopt an ELO based system, if you don't then stop making complaints about a system that is open to these types of abuse.
Your friend Lemon Drop has resigned 20+ games in the first 6 days of the new year
06 Jan 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's a chicken or egg question. The ranking system needs to be changed, and a protocol/policy/committee needs to be set up to tackle abuse. Neither one alone will be sufficient to get the clan system on track.
simply because it has not persuaded them does not mean that it is not a prerequisite.
look at the idea of unhinging clan rankings from other rankings, this will simply suffer the same type of abuse, players will throw games, artificially reduce their clan rating and we are left wondering what the point of doing it was. It must be made clear and c ...[text shortened]... tem is based on the rise and fall of a clans collective ELO then all other talk is moot to boot.
06 Jan 17
Originally posted by moonbusI have no problems with 1 player clans.
A clan-in-the-making, that is, a founder who has not yet attracted followers, is one thing; a solo-clan (permanently seeking no followers) is slightly different. Of course, we should allow a founder some time to attract followers. If he attracts none, well, that's a clear enough message in itself.
See ragwort's post why solo-clans make sense.
A clan has to start somewhere.
And tightening up the rules too much can actually hurt the subscription base.
Trying to put ourselves in Russ' shoes.
An interesting observation to make.
Lemondrop's 1 player clan is currently not recruiting.
- Joined
- 17 Mar 10
- Moves
- 626871
06 Jan 17
Hello Russ....
Another option....
You currently have a current rating of a player. I will use me in this example:
I am currently 1451.
My 5 year high is 1593. My 1 year high is 1546....
My 5 year low is 1033 and my 1 year low is 1224.
My all time high is not listed and it was 1629.
I feel perhaps that you should limit me to opponents up to 200 points below my all time high...
Perhaps start keeping track of all time highs....
ie: 1429 or higher... under the current system i am allowed to play guys from 1251-1651...
1251 vs me is okay if 1251 guy is not at an all time high...
if the 1251 has an all time high of 1600... then its a fair match up... but if 1251 is his all time high... then he should and would lose to me....
The 200 part could be adjusted... but i repeat my earlier finding....
How fair is the following match up:
1252 vs 1244
1252 is currently at their all time high.... and 1244 once was 1944 as an all time high....
I do follow that sometimes a 1844 crashes down because of inactivity.... but why should he be allowed to work his way up in clan matches vs fellow 1200s guys...
If you don't limit it to 200 below all time highs... maybe a warning to clan leaders before accepting?
Example: PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE TWO PLAYERS ALL TIME HIGHS ARE MORE THAN 200 RATINGS POINTS APART.
As much as I like to try my luck vs 1800 plus players... my success rate vs them is not that great...
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have previously put forth a proposal that in addition to a separate clan rating, a separate rating formula be used for clan ratings.
simply because it has not persuaded them does not mean that it is not a prerequisite.
look at the idea of unhinging clan rankings from other rankings, this will simply suffer the same type of abuse, players will throw games, artificially reduce their clan rating and we are left wondering what the point of doing it was. It must be made clear and c ...[text shortened]... tem is based on the rise and fall of a clans collective ELO then all other talk is moot to boot.
I pointed out that the formula in the FAQ has a variance constant K.
This can be easily used to alter the formula so that the ratings chamge less after each completed clan game.
A player's rating can change only 4 points instead of 16 normally for a completed game between 2 equally rated players.
It also allows clans to secure a challenge without the usual finger pointing and accusations of rating manipulation.
This will keep the clan system fluid.
Meaning more challenges being created quicker because decided challenges can be put in the books sooner.
Fluidity means better subscription base.
Which means better revenue.
The last enhancement on January 2016 just hurt that fluidity.
Just thinking like Russ.
This site is a businesses after all.
Originally posted by moonbusI disagree, if there is a rating system in place which tackles sandbagging, clans and players throwing games etc by making it detrimental for them to do so then why is this idea of a committee needed? the system will take care of itself. Artificially drop your rating and your clan suffers. Throw games and your clan suffers. Create lopsided challenges and your clan suffers. Collusion will no longer be an issue either because there will be no point in colluding against lower rated players. Why this should need a committee to explain or implement it I cannot say and neither it seems can anyone else.
It's a chicken or egg question. The ranking system needs to be changed, and a protocol/policy/committee needs to be set up to tackle abuse. Neither one alone will be sufficient to get the clan system on track.
Originally posted by mghrn55I don't really care what formula is used but it must be performance based and because the pool of players is much smaller I expect that clan ratings will reflect this dynamic. Completing more challenges than everyone else is not a valid criteria of performance this was the problem with the previous system.
I have previously put forth a proposal that in addition to a separate clan rating, a separate rating formula be used for clan ratings.
I pointed out that the formula in the FAQ has a variance constant K.
This can be easily used to alter the formula so that the ratings chamge less after each completed clan game.
A player's rating can change only 4 poin ...[text shortened]... 2016 just hurt that fluidity.
Just thinking like Russ.
This site is a businesses after all.
fluidity means better subscription base? you will of course have empirical evidence for the claim that a direct correlation exists.
06 Jan 17
I actually think that a rating based system will make clans much more dynamic and exciting because instead of the two or three clans who challenge for the top position year after year, because the margins will be relatively smaller it may make the contest much closer and more exciting bringing in a much broader range of challengers than at present.