Originally posted by my2sonsIt's gotten to the stage now where it shows up the admin of this site as a bunch of weak and lazy non entities. The lack of courage by admin to step in and right the wrongs is now being discussed on other chess websites. They laugh at how lame this site has become and the way a few malcontents push the administration of the site around like pawns.
Sleazy Riders just picked up 24 points from the Arrow Clan after getting 22 points from the same clan less than a week before. And the beat goes on between Sleazy Riders and their 3 conspirator clans.
I doubt that the admin on this site will ever develop the backbone to stand up to carrobie, mctayo, vespin and co. They're scared and intimidated by them and have turned this site into a laughing stock for other chess websites to laugh at.
Originally posted by radioactive69now that you have chimed in I'm sure the administration will fix things pronto
It's gotten to the stage now where it shows up the admin of this site as a bunch of weak and lazy non entities. The lack of courage by admin to step in and right the wrongs is now being discussed on other chess websites. They laugh at how lame this site has become and the way a few malcontents push the administration of the site around like pawns.
I ...[text shortened]... ed by them and have turned this site into a laughing stock for other chess websites to laugh at.
after all you are crusader rabbit
Originally posted by lemondropThanks for having such high faith in my abilities Lemon, it's appreciated, but admin don't have the spine to move against the likes of carrbie, mctayo and Vespin.
now that you have chimed in I'm sure the administration will fix things pronto
after all you are crusader rabbit
They'd rather sit back and watch the site slowly deteriorate into a site that not only tolerates cheating but almost encourages it.
Originally posted by radioactive69got to hand it to the cheat's though
Thanks for having such high faith in my abilities Lemon, it's appreciated, but admin don't have the spine to move against the likes of carrbie, mctayo and Vespin.
They'd rather sit back and watch the site slowly deteriorate into a site that not only tolerates cheating but almost encourages it.
they are highly organised
really can't have a life outside of here.
they have robbie, leading the easy riders getting fed fixed games, and posts BS non stop to boost.
they have mctayto, who seems content with being a doormat, resigning games galore, a main key in the group
they have lemondrop, who trys his best to turn this into abuse, keep the other clan leaders out,obviously he has other accounts probably at least one in the easy riders, after the illuck and kathmandu1 fiasco, he should have been booted.
they have the "brains" in vespin, how many accounts does he have? only he can answer, he is no way banned, but is posting under another account.
with all the accounts they own, they must be putting pressure on admin to do nothing, money talks.
to me this has got to be the saddest thing i have ever seen, grown men? [who knows] acting like kids, totally pathetic.
one last question for the cheats...is it worth the time the money to win? sorry i am confused, what do you get for winning exactly?
may karma deal with you as this site will not.
way to go kids
Originally posted by roma45Another round of Scotlands finest bitter please for Roma and his friends the metaliweeds.
got to hand it to the cheat's though
they are highly organised
really can't have a life outside of here.
they have robbie, leading the easy riders getting fed fixed games, and posts BS non stop to boost.
they have mctayto, who seems content with being a doormat, resigning games galore, a main key in the group
they have lemondrop, who trys his best to tur ...[text shortened]... o you get for winning exactly?
may karma deal with you as this site will not.
way to go kids
Originally posted by robbie carrobieinteresting you don't deny it
Another round of Scotlands finest bitter please for Roma and his friends the metaliweeds.
still think your pathetic "protest" in ruining the clan system is a good idea?
another round of fixed points from arrow anti-metallica or breaking bad for Robbie please barman,
Originally posted by mghrn55I agree that there are two problems: corrupt data, and structural weaknesses in the system (i.e., programming errors). The corrupt data are an effect; the cause was that programming weaknesses were being exploited.
We should be open to improvements.
And the fix that Russ put in January this year helps.
But it fixes the problem after the fact, after the damage has been done.
In an IT world, we encounter problems which requires a solution from programming and data fix perspectives.
Just think if your bank zapped a large sum of money from your account.
The programm ...[text shortened]... ,
then they should acknowledge the whole problem.
And fix the whole problem !!
Makes sense ??
Fixing the corrupt data (i.e, treating the effect) without repairing the programming errors (the underlying cause) will be of no avail--subsequent data will just get corrupted again (and again ad nauseum) until the programming errors are corrected.
2 edits
Originally posted by Very RustyIt is disappointing that the honor system was so easily exploited. Resetting the points won't fix it, and neither will punitive measures. There will have to be a thorough rethink how the clan standings are calculated and how clan challenges are set up, so as to make the system less vulnerable to a multitude of exploits (such as sandbagging and collusion).
Then perhaps both should be done. You can't reward collusion between 4 Clans, we all know who they are now....Easy Rider, Breaking Bad, Anti Metallica & Arrow. They have to be punished as were the Clans last year, with point roll backs and suspensions.
Then work on fixing/changing the clan system. Lets do both, so it NEVER happens again. It has given ...[text shortened]... ace for all of us to compete with folks from around the world.
Kind Regards,
Sincerely,
-VR
As a certain player here has said, there is no rule (neither in FIDE regulations nor at RHP) which forbids the resigning of a won game, even one move away from an obvious mate. Nonetheless, when a pattern emerges of resigning won games and losing challenges--always against the same clan(s)--this is not a violation of any rule of chess per se, but it clearly constitutes a breach of sportsmanship more serious than merely poor etiquette.
I think we are all agreed that there is a strong desire to prevent further abuse. More policing is not the solution. The solution is to restructure the system to make certain sorts of abuse impossible (or, at any rate, no longer influential with respect to clan standings). Once that is accomplished, the point counts will right themselves in due course.
EDIT: it is unfortunate that so much resentment and invective has been generated on this issue, as that tends to cloud people's judgment how best to put things right.
The easiest way to set things right would be to jail all Metallica members along with their brown nosed flunkies for a minimum of 20yrs each (shortie gets 40yrs) and a guarantee that they will be denied internet privileges.
Then those that are left would play within the rules and also abide by an honour system
Originally posted by moonbusgood idea not sure how it can be fixed.
It is disappointing that the honor system was so easily exploited. Resetting the points won't fix it, and neither will punitive measures. There will have to be a thorough rethink how the clan standings are calculated and how clan challenges are set up, so as to make the system less vulnerable to a multitude of exploits (such as sandbagging and collusion).
...[text shortened]... generated on this issue, as that tends to cloud people's judgment how best to put things right.
do not more policing just proper policing, when it's obvious clans are fixing games like three are doing against the easy riders, remove the points and suspend the clans for one month, second offence two months.
this would soon deter the cheats seeing their hard "work" removed, plus admin to tell each player in the clans involved they are being watched, some will be totally innocent just playing for the love of the game,
Originally posted by Mctaytoso you will only play fair if metallica are banned
The easiest way to set things right would be to jail all Metallica members along with their brown nosed flunkies for a minimum of 20yrs each (shortie gets 40yrs) and a guarantee that they will be denied internet privileges.
Then those that are left would play within the rules and also abide by an honour system
do you even understand how idiotic that sounds
Originally posted by moonbusSir,
It is disappointing that the honor system was so easily exploited. Resetting the points won't fix it, and neither will punitive measures. There will have to be a thorough rethink how the clan standings are calculated and how clan challenges are set up, so as to make the system less vulnerable to a multitude of exploits (such as sandbagging and collusion).
...[text shortened]... generated on this issue, as that tends to cloud people's judgment how best to put things right.
Are you suggesting that leaving the collusion clans with their Stolen points is the proper way to handle it? If there is not punishment, it will be repeated. I am saying sir, that both have to be done. A point roll back, suspensions, and fix the problem. That isn't so hard to grasp is it?
Kindest Regards,
Sincerely,
-VR
Originally posted by roma45Even supposing that cheats were banned, their ill-gotten points annulled, and collusion and sandbagging were no longer practised, we would still not have a level playing field.There remains the first point on my list (previously posted) that sheer number of wins is not a fair measure of clan performance. Bulk wins unfairly favors large clans which play many games at short time limits, for the same reason that a soccer team which puts 20 men on the field is likely to score more goals than a team with only 5 men on the field. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in maths to figure out that a clan with 20 members who play at 1-day time limits is likely to score more wins (as well as losses and draws) than a clan with 5 players playing at 1-week time limits.
good idea not sure how it can be fixed.
do not more policing just proper policing, when it's obvious clans are fixing games like three are doing against the easy riders, remove the points and suspend the clans for one month, second offence two months.
this would soon deter the cheats seeing their hard "work" removed, plus admin to tell each player in the c ...[text shortened]... ved they are being watched, some will be totally innocent just playing for the love of the game,
That too must be rectified, and it won't happen by re-allocating points or banning players. The method of calculating clan standings would have to be changed in order to ensure a level playing field in which sheer bulk were no longer an advantage.
In case anybody is in any doubt about where I stand, I do not condone the method by which some clans have demonstrated that sheer bulk-wins is a meaningless criterion; I merely point out that it has been conclusively so demonstrated.
EDIT: Further to the above regarding a fair measure of playing strength, I invite players to visit the following links:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=10240
You will find there the database of Alekhine's games. He played before a universal numerical rating system was in place, so his strength is given as a ratio of wins to draws, not the sheer bulk of his wins. His win ratio comes out over 74%.
Capablanca achieved a similar ratio, but with a smaller number of games in the database:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=47544
Fischer is in the ballpark at 72%:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=19233
The current system of RHP clan ratings is skewed in accounting only wins, rather than win ratios. By the current RHP system, a clan with 100 wins and 10,000 draws and 20,000 losses would stand better than a clan with 99 wins and no draws no losses. That is skew-whiff.
A fair clan standings system should either: a) take account of win ratios, not mere bulk wins; or b) some kind of adjusted collective clan ELO net rating change (i.e., a clan which improved its collective net rating 100+ points would stand higher than a clan with a lower collective net rating change).