Originally posted by roma45Thank You kindly Sir, but I am not new to Forum debates. I've pretty much been called everything you can imagine. I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to the name calling. I can give as good as I get. Trick is you don't stoop down to their level. Just be polite. 😉
careful. don't let him bait you
we hit them with the truth, provided proof, they resort to childish name calling,it's an effective tactic used when caught bang to rights.
mctayto is a disgrace, he is handing the easy riders points, that's a fact, please don't let that sack of ????, get to you,
lamo did the same in the other thread, keep posting pt$$, hide the truth
karma will get the three stoogies
Lemondrop told me this afternoon I was driving him nuts about the Karma...LOL...He knows there is truth in what goes around comes around. I think he is concerned. I know they resort to name calling when they know you have them red handed, which we do.
Kind Regards,
You don't have to worry about Karma 😉
-VR
Originally posted by KnightStalker47Once again you are incorrect. Metallica is not bitter at all.
[b]Win/lose Ratio of Metallica Over The Years
2016: 90W 31L
2015: 213W 63L
2014: 311W 79L
2013: 347W 102L
2012: 346W 106L
2011: 507W 219L
2010: 830W 192L
2009: 605W 186L
2008: 587W 246L
etc.
This is an impossible statistical anomaly, if you assume the challenges are fair. You seriously believe these results to be a hot streak!? You ...[text shortened]... ges were close, get real.
Metallica is just bitter, because they're losing at their own game.[/b]
We know what the cheats are doing.
We have pointed it out in accurate detail.
If the rest of the community is content to let it go on,
then the whole clan system because a turd in a punch bowl.
Originally posted by Very RustyA number of proposals have been made, by myself and others. These include (but are not limited to) the following:
Sir,
That I believe everyone is aware of, but do you have any solutions that might be helpful in doing so? I am sure everyone would like to see a fix for the clan system. It is quite obvious the honor system isn't working out. Banning some players and nullifying the points would send a strong message not to do it again!!!
-VR
1. The bulk number of wins is not a fair measure of a clan’s success, as this favors 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 have leveled 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.
Other suggested improvements would be welcome.
These and other proposals were put up for discussion at the forums and sent by PM to Russ. To my knowledge, little has been done to correct the situation.
Originally posted by moonbusnumber 3 would be the easiest to do, already separate ratings for clubs, surely they can do it for clans.
A number of proposals have been made, by myself and others. These include (but are not limited to) the following:
1. The bulk number of wins is not a fair measure of a clan’s success, as this favors 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 ...[text shortened]... e forums and sent by PM to Russ. To my knowledge, little has been done to correct the situation.
i would also like the play for one clan only rule, got to be a conflict of interest when playing for two or three clans if they are playing each other.
last year strategic ultimatum and univercity of chess both got suspended, rightly so, to me admin sent a message to all clans, "play fair or suspensions will happen"
what happened next?
arrow breaking bad anti metallica, have handed the easy riders the majority of their points, mvtayto resigning when 1 move from winning, and right at the start of challenges.
some sort of protest? just using a loop hole to ruin the site?
to me the standard was set last year with the su and uc getting suspended. same thing should happen now, with all points wiped clear
Originally posted by moonbusRuss is not willing to do the work. He believes he is bullet proof or else can't be bothered.
A number of proposals have been made, by myself and others. These include (but are not limited to) the following:
1. The bulk number of wins is not a fair measure of a clan’s success, as this favors 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 ...[text shortened]... e forums and sent by PM to Russ. To my knowledge, little has been done to correct the situation.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Companies that were once strong go belly up everyday because of shortsighted management.
Originally posted by roma45Nothing is solved by suspending players/clans and nullifying ill-gotten points. Suspending clans and/or banning specific players, without correcting the weaknesses in the system, leaves the clan system wide open to exploitation by other players/clans, or by the same players/clans who simply log on under new names.
number 3 would be the easiest to do, already separate ratings for clubs, surely they can do it for clans.
i would also like the play for one clan only rule, got to be a conflict of interest when playing for two or three clans if they are playing each other.
last year strategic ultimatum and univercity of chess both got suspended, rightly so, to me admin sen ...[text shortened]... with the su and uc getting suspended. same thing should happen now, with all points wiped clear
Originally posted by moonbusSir,
Nothing is solved by suspending players/clans and nullifying ill-gotten points. Suspending clans and/or banning specific players, without correcting the weaknesses in the system, leaves the clan system wide open to exploitation by other players/clans, or by the same players/clans who simply log on under new names.
It would get rid of the specific players involved in the collusion and also points that were gained by CHEATING. So, they come back as other names, how long do you think it will take for us to pick up on who they are?
Kindest Regards,
Sincerely,
-VR
Originally posted by KnightStalker47You can also look at the records of Glasgow Celtic, Bayern Munich, Manchester United, New England Patriots, etc, etc, etc, over the years.
[b]Win/lose Ratio of Metallica Over The Years
2016: 90W 31L
2015: 213W 63L
2014: 311W 79L
2013: 347W 102L
2012: 346W 106L
2011: 507W 219L
2010: 830W 192L
2009: 605W 186L
2008: 587W 246L
etc.
This is an impossible statistical anomaly, if you assume the challenges are fair. You seriously believe these results to be a hot streak!? You ...[text shortened]... ges were close, get real.
Metallica is just bitter, because they're losing at their own game.[/b]
That teams have a winning tradition is an outrage, isn't it ??
If Metallica has a 90W 31L record this year, they probably wish it was 121W 0L.
It appears to be a crime to strive for excellence in some eyes !!
The politics of envy have taken over the clan forum !!
And it is no coincidence that it is led by a self-described Socialist who brings his obsession and envy into this chess site.
In the meantime, Metallica continue their great battle with Wycombe.
Some clans at least strive to make the 2016 clan championship interesting !!
Originally posted by Very RustyHow many more times do you want to go through the same ringer, identifying and denouncing cheaters, complaining about it endlessly in the forums, and waiting months for the sys-ops to do something about it ? Seems an exercise in futility. Wouldn't it be better to repair the system so that that sort of cheating were no longer possible?
Sir,
It would get rid of the specific players involved in the collusion and also points that were gained by CHEATING. So, they come back as other names, how long do you think it will take for us to pick up on who they are?
Kindest Regards,
Sincerely,
-VR
Originally posted by moonbusRuss is quite aware of the problems. He also seems quite willing to let the chips fall where they may.
How many more times do you want to go through the same ringer, identifying and denouncing cheaters, complaining about it endlessly in the forums, and waiting months for the sys-ops to do something about it ? Seems an exercise in futility. Wouldn't it be better to repair the system so that that sort of cheating were no longer possible?
You may not be aware, but the reason Metallica, and others are angry that Russ has not
stepped in and removed the points from the collusion, is that he has done precisely that
in the past, in a situation that wasn't even as blatant as this. It was simply that the same
two players had 100 simultaneous challenges against each other. They were legitimate
games and challenges, they were all within the rules, but several of those who griped
about that situation, are causing this situation. And, Russ came in and voided all of the
challenges and all of the points. So, there is precedent here. Russ has not acted, and is
content to let it play out, regardless of the consequence apparently.
But, if you can get an audience with Russ, knock yourself out.
Originally posted by moonbusYes these are great suggestions and would be favoured by the Easy Riders.
A number of proposals have been made, by myself and others. These include (but are not limited to) the following:
1. The bulk number of wins is not a fair measure of a clan’s success, as this favors 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 ...[text shortened]... e forums and sent by PM to Russ. To my knowledge, little has been done to correct the situation.
The only reservation that I have on a system correlated to rise and falls in ELO. For example Player A (a 1700 rated player) joins the site and joins a clan and has a rating of 1400 provisionally assigned to him. As he plays his rating will increase until it reaches a zenith. Until that point however his rating increase would be significant enough to propel his clan forward all other things considered. How would you take care of this?
Originally posted by shortcircuitshud up and take yo whuppin yah greetin faced mamas boy!
Russ is quite aware of the problems. He also seems quite willing to let the chips fall where they may.
You may not be aware, but the reason Metallica, and others are angry that Russ has not
stepped in and removed the points from the collusion, is that he has done precisely that
in the past, in a situation that wasn't even as blatant as this. It was ...[text shortened]... f the consequence apparently.
But, if you can get an audience with Russ, knock yourself out.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSir,
shud up and take yo whuppin yah greetin faced mamas boy!
You happen to be one of the toughest guys I know behind a key board, well next to kegge. He may have you beat. I'd love to see you tell that to shortcircuit face to face. 😛 I am willing to put a wager on it, that you would run, that is if you are still able to. 😉
Kindest Regards,
Karma is biting hard at your butt,
Sincerely,
-VR