Clan System Request for Proposals

Originally posted by Blood On The Tracks
The definition of irony : to remove myself from the same, could I say that it would be productive to this thread if posters could keep to the directive on the first post

As you are not a member of a clan and this post is mainly about clan honesty but also sandbagging
I wonder what interest you have in it
Or are you waiting for the outcome to become a subscriber and join one of them ?

Originally posted by Russ
Which are you seeing? Most only trigger once a team has been submitted?

edit :Clarification - Most need a team to be submitted before an error can be known.

"Both Clan members must be subscribers" showed up after setting up the matchups vs. World Wide Clan. 😕

Originally posted by Russ
Which are you seeing? Most only trigger once a team has been submitted?

edit :Clarification - Most need a team to be submitted before an error can be known.

"Your clan has challenged or been challenged by this clan in the last 7 days" showed up after arranging the matchups vs. Ancha es Castilla. 😕

You know what would be awesome? If, for Clans I can't challenge, the "Challenge this Clan" button was disabled, and there was a short message under the button explaining why I can't challenge.

Would save a lot of wasted effort.

Originally posted by padger
As you are not a member of a clan and this post is mainly about clan honesty but also sandbagging
I wonder what interest you have in it
Or are you waiting for the outcome to become a subscriber and join one of them ?

Hi. Yes, the latter sums me up. Have stayed out of this thread until now.

Apologies for the lack of engagement with the origin of the thread on this post

I do think that the deletion of any post that suggests a little more haste in site decision making or criticising any aspect of the site is a tad '1984'

Maybe this will disappear!

Originally posted by Blood On The Tracks
Hi. Yes, the latter sums me up. Have stayed out of this thread until now.

Apologies for the lack of engagement with the origin of the thread on this post

I do think that the deletion of any post that suggests a little more haste in site decision making or criticising any aspect of the site is a tad '1984'

Maybe this will disappear!

So as an outsider so to speak
How do you see things so far
On the one hand you have a bunch of clans that have got together to stop another clan from being the most industrious clan on site
They say that because once this clan have won a challenge they resign all unfinished games to free up space for more challenges
This amounts to Sandbagging
Two of the members of these clans have resigned a lot of games since the start of the new year
One at least 15 the other 30
The latter resigned one game when he had a king and 2 pawns against a king, one where he had a queen a rook a bishop and 3 pawns against a king and a pawn another one where he had a queen a rook a bishop and 2 pawns against q and 2 pawns
The reason they will give is because of the clan that resigns games
What would be your answer to all this

Originally posted by padger
So as an outsider so to speak
How do you see things so far
On the one hand you have a bunch of clans that have got together to stop another clan from being the most industrious clan on site
They say that because once this clan have won a challenge they resign all unfinished games to free up space for more challenges
This amounts to Sandbagging
Two of th ...[text shortened]... they will give is because of the clan that resigns games
What would be your answer to all this

Thanks for asking, not sure my input is too valid as I have never been a member of a Clan.

I understand that some players will resign their games in a Clan 'battle' once their side has established an overall win (or, I suppose, a loss is guaraneed). I just don't see the logic in that. I would want to win any game for my Clan, a 3-1 loss being better than 4-0. Thence, their ratings drop so next 'Clan challenge' they may play a weaker player. (so i suppose that is the logic of it!)

Then we have the accusation that a certain Clan has 3 others that they always play, and the 3 Clans are accused of resigning v quickly across the board (so to speak) and gifting points

I just wouldn't take the Clan standings as seriously as many people on here clearly do!

There will be ways to cheat your way to the top whatever is done, unless one supervisor checks out every challenge for cheating.

Originally posted by Blood On The Tracks


There will be ways to cheat your way to the top whatever is done, unless one supervisor checks out every challenge for cheating.

Bott,

This has already been discussed, only the concept was having a team of respected Clan leaders to do the checking that way, it is not a one man/woman decision. Much less chance of any bias.

-VR

Fair enough, rusters

seems an even better plan, unless any Clans 'penalised' by these respected Clan leaders cry 'foul' ~ 'you want your Clan to beat us/ do better than us/ we have old grudges with you' etc. You get the picture

A veritable Gordian knot. Fortunately not mine to undo

-bott

Originally posted by Very Rusty
Bott,

This has already been discussed, only the concept was having a team of respected Clan leaders to do the checking that way, it is not a one man/woman decision. Much less chance of any bias.

-VR

Not in favour of a panel
It should be self regulating
The way I see things
The 4 main points were at the start of this
1 Collusion
2 Sandbagging
3 Dead players
4 Points awarded for a win

1 The way around collusion would be that a clan cannot challenge the same clan in a 90 day period
Add to this a clan cannot challenge the same clan whilst a challenge was stll in action

2 The way to stop sandbagging would be the player who resigns there would be no rating change
I would like to see that one back dated to the 1st of January
Also this should apply to time out games No loss no gain to stop people leaving the site for a couple of months and then coming back to find they are rated some 300 to 400 points below when they left


3 The way to stop dead players would be to able participate in a challenge player must have moved in the last 14 days
This has already been sorted

4 Points should be awarded on the size of the challenge
So that a 10 man challenge would be 10 points for the win and 1 point for everygame won
If challenge finishes 11 - 9 winning clan would get 10 + 11 = 21 points losing clan 9
If a 5 man challenge ended 6 - 4 winning clan would get 5 + 6 = 11 points losing clan 4
Draws would be just games won
The leading clan should be the one that interacts with the other clans the most and can win the most
Otherwise why not just put them in alphabetical order

Sorry guys, I know it appears that I have abandoned you - this is not the case. My earlier efforts of trying to multitask this weren't that successful and very inefficient use of time. I'll be giving it my full focus soon.

"2 The way to stop sandbagging would be the player who resigns there would be no rating change" makes no sense. It would lead to players resigning games as soon as they got into losing positions, with the result that resigned games would no longer drop players' ratings. Completely meaningless ratings would be the long-term effect.

Originally posted by moonbus
"2 The way to stop sandbagging would be the player who resigns there would be no rating change" makes no sense. It would lead to players resigning games as soon as they got into losing positions, with the result that resigned games would no longer drop players' ratings. Completely meaningless ratings would be the long-term effect.

That is exactly what is needed
I was under the impression that everybody wanted to improve their rating not make it worse
So by keeping their rating as is they will play slightly better players than themselves and hopefully improve their game

Originally posted by moonbus
"2 The way to stop sandbagging would be the player who resigns there would be no rating change" makes no sense. It would lead to players resigning games as soon as they got into losing positions, with the result that resigned games would no longer drop players' ratings. Completely meaningless ratings would be the long-term effect.

It would also stop people dumping games as the two I mentioned in an earlier post
one who dumped 30 games and one dumped 15 games and of course you have Lemondrop who dump 20 games in the first 6 days
If they didn't benefit by resigning games they would have try to lose them
Harder done than said