different views

So this is a real enlightening discussion. Thank you for starting it.

I lead a rarther small clan. I try to keep challenges fair. And I try still to win like some other captains said. Anyway we hat results of n:0, which I feel to be embarrassing in both ways. It happens, so no tears to be shed about that.

The ranking I ignore mostly, since more or less any system can be rigged. Any set of rules can be perverted. The suggested honour List would suffer as was pointed out previously by a single captain thnking to get some kick out of it.

I play sometimes in ICCF matches. Real names there. So if you would pull anyhing funny people would know. This would be the only thing that could remotely count. But given the attacks I have seen here I would rather not have my real name on this dite. Sorry.

I think, rather than a two-tiered clan system, which would lead to bad feelings among the clans relegated to the 'bottom tier', that my suggestion earlier in the year, to institute a two-tier ratings system instead, with separate ratings for clan games and regular games, including tournament games, would stop the effect that sandbagging creates. Those who join as many tournaments as possible, even to the point of manipulating their rating so that they can enter two bands of the very same banded tournament, just so they can then resign all their games in order to lower their rating for clan games, would be stopped from doing this with a separate rating for clan games.

Of course, as part of a two-step program, in which the second step would be to penalize clans who throw games and entire matches simply to shovel clan points to another clan, this would go a long way towards returning clan play here at RHP to a fair and honorable system, which would then result in more players joining the site who were turned off by what a joke the clan system here has become.

Sorry, you never find a fair solution in a clanratingsystem.

For example loopsided games are forbidden. What should a clan with higher rated players do. They find no challenges for his complete teams and cannot play so many games as other clanmmebers with lower rating. Normally this clans must stay on the top, but they can't, becaus the get not enough games. A rule, which is against higer rated player. The most clanratingrules bring other porblems, in a game who is perfect ruled 🙁 . This is all to say.

Best Regards
Johannes

Respect to lemondrop, his one clanmanshow. But there you can see, that a onemanshow get more points than The fast Players in the last month, he will override some Clans and can stay on the 2nd or 3rd place at the end of the year. Next year he can get a better rating, too. All my respect to lemondrop but not to the rules of the clanratingsystem.

I am not in favour of forcing players to play to the Kings. Many games are decided way before that stage and it makes no logical sense to enforce such an approach and infact it pains me greatly to see players playing on in positions that are clearly drawn/lost only to postpone the inevitable. One of my players did reach a game where there were only kings left and both players still made moves???

Perhaps something more akin to Sofia rules? that is no draws/resignations could be offered until a certain number of moves had been reached. The idea was introduced to prevent so called 'Grandmaster draws', that is short draws being offered, I think the limit was typically 30 moves before a draw could be offered. Perhaps something like this is better than playing to the Kings, no draws or resignations until move 30 has been made. The other suggestions that I favour have been published originally by moonbus and I repeat them here in the hope that they find popular support and will be implemented.

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.

trying to find a fair solution to the clan system is mission impossible, when i say fair solution i mean a system every one is happy with.
first thing to be done is try and put integrity back into the clan system, two teams did the collusion thing last year both got suspended, they still are.
but the same players since start other clans, arrow antimetallica and breaking bad, they set about handing the easy riders, the invisible title, resigning games without even moving in going as far as even resigning games when one move from winning, they say it/s a protest, it's not it's an act of pure childish spite.

simple answer when it's really obvious like what is going on here, simply suspend the clan and remove point/s, send a message to those who try and destroy the site, it comes down to the mighty pound or dollar or what ever money involved. how many of the protesters have threatened to leave?
a two tier system or playing to the kings good idea but will not work, alas some will still use underhand tactics.
some ideas to make it fairer
!] any player who has not moved in say 30 days should not be allowed to be entered in clan challenges, a arrow player has not moved in 3 months, but is still feeding the easy riders, a perfect example of collusion.
2] winner takes it all. no not the abba song, any drawn challenge, each team gets zero points, that would stop lemondrop, who changes his clans name on a daily basis, and the easy riders, sharing points, time to close that loop hole.
3] i said this years ago, suzi has said it again, have a separate rating for the clan you are in. there is currently a separate rating for clubs, should be easy for clans
4] one clan, each player should only be allowed to play for one clan, that will stop any conflict of interest.

it would be interesting to hear idea's from robbie mctayto and vespin on here, but i doubt there will be a civil answer

robert

the only thing clans seem good at is promoting hatred among players
so let us have all out war
no rules
anarchy!

What i really like is there are a lot of different clan leaders who have posted in this forum - and there are some very good ideas in this thread alone

What?
A sensible discussion on the clans thread ?
There's hope for the site yet!!
Russ has tried lot's of things to try to make the clan system as fair as possible.The restriction on rating match ups and limiting clan challenges to 3 concurrent being the most recent and I think these have helped.
A system similar to baseball I read earlier on the thread.
Isn't that what the leagues do?
I find most of my lot are reluctant to play in the leagues.
I don't know why.
Is it the number of games they get all at once or the thought of unfair match ups?
Firstly I think you have to ask why people join clans.
Is it because they like someone else to find games for them?
Is it because they like to discuss things on the clan forum with people with similar interests?
Or is it to look at the net points clan list which seems to be the only one that's ever mentioned?
With my clan Clan 24514 I take note of all individual performances and compile a league table of the members once a month.It's accumulative so all games completed in a calendar year are included
It works on a formula I devised which doesn't depend on number of games played.
For example the current league leader hasn't won as many games as the player in 3rd place.A new member who hasn't yet completed any games for the clan is notbottom of the league.
It's not perfect but I know most of my members like it.
A similar system could be adopted for clans instead of the(in my opinion) meaningless net points list which causes all the trouble.
Sorry to ramble on.

This thread is a step in the right direction.
Lots of sensible debate here.

The bulk of it is focused on a go forward solution.

The current issue of collusion also needs to be looked at.

That's where my comment about the need for some referees came in yesterday.
For all the improvements that can be made to this feature, we will continue to need some sort of refereeing in place.
Major sports have it, be it red or yellow cards, penalty boxes, etc ...

This site does have refereeing in place.
Forum bans are an example of this.
Clan feature has it too as the clan suspensions last year show.

For the collusion that has gone on this year, we need more than the apologetic response that this was some form of protest.
Or the wailing "other clans have cheated, so we did too" that we have heard from the perpetrators of the collusion fiasco.

We will need refereeing now and into the future.

Let's keep the ideas coming.

I see some good ideas, but there is still nothing to stop Clans who just want to throw games to another clan from doing so. How do you eleminate this??? I can tell you how, get ride of the players who are involved in doing the practice. Nice to see some sensible suggestions for a change!!!

Regards,
-VR

The problem with the Clan system is anyone who considers the Clan they are in is better than any other Clan
What the Clan pages show who is most active not the best teams
How can you compare one clan who plays 100 games with another one who only plays 50
Also how can you play in more than 1 Clan at a time
How would it be if a Quarterback played for more than one team or a goalkeeper played for more than one team
The whole thing ,if it is to be taken seriously ,needs rewriting
All Clans play the same amount of challenges
No players to be in more than one Clan
Find some way of stopping sand bagging

The sand bagging rate manipulations would be compensated for by the math (figuring the ratings of games played but excluding resigned games from being counted). Ponderable currently has 84 games going, with over 13,000 games to date. There are only under 200 clans Many will not care, since most of the "don't care" about clan rank or winning - taking up most of the last 2-3 pages, they do not have to fill all the games, since they already play the clan system their own way, no difference will matter.

Again, the games are distributed between your members. Metallica has enough games already going to be a complete season. They would be restrained from slamming the clan board with challenges and have unreachable points totals the rest of us are discouraged to attempt. That problem would stop as well as make the clans that want a higher rating...a fair chance to reach.

I don't like the 200 point lock on ratings. Often I am offering challenges where I know the rating not accurate to the players ability; I compensate by matching to players I know they belong playing. I myself have an rating under my ability. I did not sandbag. I truly have this because I play over a 100 games and can't always think about every move as much as I should. I don't try to match against low rated players, but am stopped when I try to match higher rated players.

How else can a lower rated player get better, if you can't play better players?

I have a regular game with a 2000 player. Even though I have lost 30, I won 1. I get better every game. This is not happening with clan, although the 200 limit should be removed and the clan leaders should have the say.

Perhaps a way of sorting this issue out would be
Starting January 2017
Clans may only challenge clans on the same page
At the end of the year the bottom three clans would change places with the top three on the page below
Clans could challenge other clans not on the same page but this would not count towards their place on the current page

some good ideas

for me some of the first steps to improve the system would be:

1) clan players that have not moved for 30 days automatically become unavailable for challenges

2) clans can not issue challenges until they have at least 2 members (how can 1 person be a clan?)

3) clan leaders can't issue a challenge against a clan where the clan leader is also a member of their clan

4) seperate rating for clan games

5) clans have an quota of higher and lower rated players to even up, ie clans can have only 10 players over 1400 or 3 players over 1800 etc

6) clan games can't be resigned