1. The bulk number of wins is not a fair measure of a clan’s success, as this favours large clans which play many games at short time limits, to the detriment of smaller clans which play fewer games at longer time limits. Quantity should not be the measure of a clan’s performance. A proposal was mooted which based clan performance on net average rating change. This would level the playing field.
2. To prevent collusion, there should be a maximum number of challenges between any two clans involving the same players, and the max. should be low (2 or 3) -- with the proviso that if two or more clans play more than the max., they may do so but the games played above the max would not affect clan standings.
3. To prevent sandbagging, clan individual ratings should be uncoupled from RHP non-clan individual ratings.
4. There should be a maximum ratings differential between clan challenge opponents. A max., of 200 was suggested.
5. An arbitrary number of clan-games would played with a provisional rating to ascertain a player's true strength, and so long as provisional ratings were in force, a modified formula would be used to calculate the rating rise or drop of opponents of provisionally-rated clan players.
Stop allowing players from entering tournaments and then mass resigning games.
If it happens once, for any reason, ban them from tournament play for one year.
This will aid in your tournament quality, and stop the sandbagging of the rating.
If any team colludes as the 4 have done this year, they should be permanently banned from clan play.
All players involved would be subject to this, regardless of how many clans they play in. This way, the players would not be so willing to go along with the desires of the masterminds.
Would it be possible to maintain a rating for clan play only?
The strict limitation of number of challenges with short term time limits did not stop the collusion effort,
it just kept it from getting totally ridiculous and slowed it down. When clans have colluded, and it is easy to prove, all colluded points should be removed from the clan that received the benefit of those points.
Clan size should have minimum number of members, at least 5 or they should not be called a clan. One player cannot make up a clan.
We also need to have a way to get clans released when a clan leader goes absentee or allows their subscription to expire.
There has to be some merit in playing 20 vs 20 challenge compared to a 2 vs 2 challenge.
It is much tougher to win the larger challenge and points have shown this.
Some have argued that If a clan wins 11 games and loses 9 games in a 10 man
challenge, they should only be awarded 2 points, which is ridiculous. But, if you were
to score it this way and tag a win bonus on the challenge of additional points, this might
work. Say in all challenges 5 man and below, a 2 point bonus. In all challenges with 6-10
man, a 5 point bonus. In all challenges 11-15 man in size, an 8 point bonus and in all
challenges 16 and above, a 10 point bonus. This would reward larger challenges and
would make it truly "clan-like". It would also encourage clan size.
Originally posted by RussRuss.
Thread 171302
Please be objective if contributing, so keep personal vendettas out of it.
I presume you want the suggestions in the thread in the site ideas forum.
Not the clan forum.
Correct ?
Then this thread can be used for the usual banter. 😀😀
Thanks for your request, Russ. Much appreciated.
Several issues need to be addressed, as I see it.
1. A fair clan ranking system which does not penalise smaller clans or rank sheer quantity of wins.
2. Fair guidelines for challenge match-ups (within which collusion is either eliminated or no longer advantageous for those clans which practise it).
3. A fair individual rating system (within which sandbagging is either eliminated or no longer advantageous for those players who practise it).
I doubt whether any simple solution will meet all these issues; a solution would have to be thoroughly well-thought out, openly discussed, probably tested for a year and possibly tweaked later on, in order to meet with wide-spread user acceptance.
Item 1. I favor ranking clans based on one or the other of the following criteria:
1a. win ratio (not bulk number of wins), OR
1b. net average rating change for a whole clan. This requires careful explanation to make people understand and accept it, but would in principle be easy to code; the point being that net rating change creates a level playing field for clans with high-rated players compared with clans which have lower-rated players, as well as between large clans and small clans: net rating change encourages players to play for a win because what counts is winning games, not whether the ratings of the players are high or low or the absolute number of wins is high or low.
(Substantially similar to Robbie's point 1 above.)
Item 2. I favor limiting the number of challenges between any two clans involving the same players which count towards the clan standings (that is, multiple challenges could be played with the same players, but only 2 or 3 would be counted in the standings). (Substantially similar to Robbie's point 2 above.)
Item 2a. I favor a maximum ratings differential between clan challenge opponents. A max., of 200 has been suggested. (Substantially similar to Robbie's point 3 above.)
Item 2b. I favor a minimum number of challenges or completed challenge games per season; we can hardly dole out a medal to a 2-man clan which plays one challenge and wins both games; sure they'll have a 100% score, but see shortcircuit's point regarding a proposed bonus system.
Item 3. I favor keeping separate individual ratings for clan games, tournament games, and regular (non-clan non-tournament games). The point being that if individual's ratings within a clan are linked to the whole clan's ranking (see item 1b. above), then sandbagging drops not only the individual's rating, but also that of his clan as well (automatically)--thereby rendering sandbagging no longer advantageous in any attempt to manipulate clan standings.
Item 3a. Same as Robbie's point 5 above -- provisional ratings to be used initially, until the reformed clan system is up and running smoothly.
Item 3b. I favor tracking individual's ratings continuously. That is, clan games should show the individual's ratings at the time each challenge was issued (frozen in time), and should should show their current ratings as well -- this will help clan captains to spot sandbaggers and refuse challenges from opponents with suspicious rating swings. Tracking individuals' ratings might also help to shorten the period of provisional ratings.
Separating individuals' clan ratings from tournament ratings, and tracking individuals' ratings, would, I believe, meet shortcircuit's concern regarding players who enter tournaments and then resign games en mass; his point is valid. It seems to me that the most efficient way to enforce it is to encode this in the individuals' ratings and clan rankings themselves, track ratings, and observe a maximum ratings differential. I don't see how stopping players from resigning games is to be enforced; refusal to accept resignations before move 30 (or any other number) won't work because players have been known to make fatal blunders in the opening.
I agree with shortcircuit that a minimum clan size makes sense. Exact numbers yet to be discussed. How many clans are there, in fact, smaller than 5? How active are they? A maximum clan size might also be considered.
"There has to be some merit in playing 20 vs 20 challenge compared to a 2 vs 2 challenge." It is certainly more work for the clan captain to arrange a 20:20 match, but I'm not convinced it produces better chess matches. There is a precedent for using bonus systems as tie-breakers, so there may be merit to using a bonus system if, at the end of a season, several clans have identical win ratios or identical net ratings change scores (or whatever else it comes to as a ranking system).
The reform of the system should, in so far as possible, incorporate changes which automatically render such practises as sandbagging, collusion, and spurious challenges irrelevant, without human intervention to rectify infractions retroactively, whereas banning people and annulling points are both labor intensive and open to dispute.
Originally posted by moonbusMoonbus ...
Thanks for your request, Russ. Much appreciated.
Several issues need to be addressed, as I see it.
1. A fair clan ranking system which does not penalise smaller clans or rank sheer quantity of wins.
2. Fair guidelines for challenge match-ups (within which collusion is either eliminated or no longer advantageous for those clans which practise it).
...[text shortened]... ively, whereas banning people and annulling points are both labor intensive and open to dispute.
Respect your input as always.
Might be a good idea to place this in the thread started in the site ideas forum.
I will read over your proposals. 🙂
