Originally posted by moonbusSir,
Even 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 ...[text shortened]... ns is a meaningless criterion; I merely point out that it has been conclusively so demonstrated.
What 20 member clan do you see playing 1 day time limits? I think the amount of games played should be rewarded. The time and effort are being put into it, hard work should always be rewarded. Perhaps have two different sections? Those who play X number of games and others who play a different X number of games? Could this make a difference?
Even with the new 200 point rule that Russ put into affect in January I believe it was is not going to stop cheating. Games can still be thrown!!! If I knew what the solution was I would pass it on, I just don't. I think though when it is obvious that games are thrown at the beginning of challenge just to give another clan points, that RUSS can and SHOULD do something about that!!!
I do know that roll back of points for the collusion clans and suspensions is something which should be done. I think teams would think twice again before trying the same trick.
Kind Regards,
Sincerely,
-VR
Originally posted by Very RustyMy comment was theoretical, not specific to any particular clan. The system must take account of limiting cases, even if a limiting case is not currently on the table.
Sir,
What 20 member clan do you see playing 1 day time limits? I think the amount of games played should be rewarded. The time and effort are being put into it, hard work should always be rewarded. Perhaps have two different sections? Those who play X number of games and others who play a different X number of games? Could this make a difference?
Kind Regards,
Sincerely,
-VR
Please note my EDIT to the above post, posted after yours.
Originally posted by moonbusSo, your opinion seems to say you want one man clans equated to 20 man clans,
Even 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 ...[text shortened]... ns is a meaningless criterion; I merely point out that it has been conclusively so demonstrated.
to level the playing field?
I think you have missed the boat here. But it is your nickel...spend it as you like.
It would be better in your scenario to make it mandatory that all clans be full in order to play.
But, that wouldn't be fair to those clans who can't stay full, would it?
Then you want to place like time constraints on all clans so no one has an advantage?
You mean penalize those who want to play every day because of those who want to pop
in once a week or so? That hardly seems fair to either side.
Plain and simply, the clans are a competition. If wins are not the best measuring stick,
then you want win percentage?? Wouldn't that just cause everyone to cherry pick their
matches to keep the percentage high??
The only way to do what you are trying to achieve, is to make EVERY clan play EVERY clan an
identical amount of times, with all clans under the same time constraints. That
was clans like robbie's couldn't duck the challenges with the top clans, and they
couldn't get loaded up by 2 or 3 other clans who, for some reason, have no problem
being looked at as the worst of the worst.
The only real problem with doing this is ALL clans are not playing this to win anything.
They are simply playing out a few challenges in their leisure.
Why not create a clan league for the clans who really want to compete? Brilliant!!
Oh wait, that would require some work on the admin dept. Russ has shown repeatedly
that he is unwilling to put forth any effort here. It is a shame too. But this is where it is.
Originally posted by moonbussome good points first thing admin has to do, make an example of the four clan working together to let one of them win, that's ridiculous should have stopped ages ago, it's happened before and must happen now and in the future if any one else stoops that low.
Even 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 ...[text shortened]... et rating 100+ points would stand higher than a clan with a lower collective net rating change).
clan performance, i don't agree with you there though, in your comparison to soccer, it's called FOOTBALL btw lol.. would it be fair for a five man team to play a few long hand picked games then be crowned champions?
the clans have a limit to 20 players it's who that wins the most in a year that should win, minus their loses obviously. the winning clan will put a huge amount of effort into the year, i have never been in that position as i can't be on here like some do.
any percentage type performance would open a whole new can of worms with regarding manipulation which we do not need just now.
large clans like football clubs have a much better chance of winning, clans that do more challenges have a much better chance of winning, a five or ten man clan will never win the title, in my opinion.
note, are you a thumbs up or thumbs down in the petition i started?
Originally posted by shortcircuitI think it would be polite if Russ could at least stick his head in here or start a thread and say "hey, I see the problem and I\m working on it" or something. His ignorance is quite frankly .........insulting.
So, your opinion seems to say you want one man clans equated to 20 man clans,
to level the playing field?
I think you have missed the boat here. But it is your nickel...spend it as you like.
It would be better in your scenario to make it mandatory that all clans be full in order to play.
But, that wouldn't be fair to those clans who can't stay f ...[text shortened]...
that he is unwilling to put forth any effort here. It is a shame too. But this is where it is.
Ban me (again) but I'm only saying what many people are thinking. Have the courtesy to reply to some of the questions that are being asked on here.
Originally posted by radioactive69Sir,
I think it would be polite if Russ could at least stick his head in here or start a thread and say "hey, I see the problem and I\m working on it" or something.
A thumbs up to you for SAYING what many are thinking including myself! As you can see, I cut out the parts I didn't think needed to be repeated. We don't know that he isn't working on the issues at hand.
I am sure other matters on the site take priority. (As always I speak for myself not the Clan) Shortcircuit does a great job at that, and much better than I could.
I gave you a thumbs up by the way. 😉
Kind Regards,
Sincerely,
-VR
Originally posted by shortcircuitWell, I guess we both know where we both stand then: you stand for quantity and I stand for quality. To each his own.
So, your opinion seems to say you want one man clans equated to 20 man clans,
to level the playing field?
I think you have missed the boat here. But it is your nickel...spend it as you like.
It would be better in your scenario to make it mandatory that all clans be full in order to play.
But, that wouldn't be fair to those clans who can't stay f ...[text shortened]...
that he is unwilling to put forth any effort here. It is a shame too. But this is where it is.
Originally posted by moonbusSir,
Well, I guess we both know where we both stand then: you stand for quantity and I stand for quality. To each his own.
I know Shortcircuit and trust me when I tell you he goes for both quantity and quality. You have to be a very dedicated player to play for Metallica.
Kindest Regards,
Sincerely,
-VR
Originally posted by roma45Win ratios, rather than bulk sums, are a generally accepted measure of performance, and frankly I'm surprised the RHP site does not take account of this. I linked to another chess site which does, and that is the accepted standard.
some good points first thing admin has to do, make an example of the four clan working together to let one of them win, that's ridiculous should have stopped ages ago, it's happened before and must happen now and in the future if any one else stoops that low.
clan performance, i don't agree with you there though, in your comparison to soccer, it's called [b] ...[text shortened]... the title, in my opinion.
note, are you a thumbs up or thumbs down in the petition i started?
I neither 'upped' nor 'downed' your petition. I think something should be done, but not what your petition suggests.
(I used "soccer" to differentiate it from the American usage of "football".)
Originally posted by Very RustyMaybe so. I'll believe it when I see the math that proves it. Show us the win ratios of the clans and compare the standings based on the current system of bulk wins only.
Sir,
I know Shortcircuit and trust me when I tell you he goes for both quantity and quality. You have to be a very dedicated player to play for Metallica.
Kindest Regards,
Sincerely,
-VR
Originally posted by moonbusHow the heck can you measure quality as a quantifier?
Well, I guess we both know where we both stand then: you stand for quantity and I stand for quality. To each his own.
Play one match per year, win it, can yourself champion?
In every event I have ever seen, it is all comers, and the victor is the one that beats the rest.
Not quality enough for you there??
Originally posted by moonbusif you are not interested in the petition by not voting, 25 thumbs up now, why not start your own thread or send feedback with your ideas instead of hi jacking this one?
Win ratios, rather than bulk sums, are a generally accepted measure of performance, and frankly I'm surprised the RHP site does not take account of this. I linked to another chess site which does, and that is the accepted standard.
I neither 'upped' nor 'downed' your petition. I think something should be done, but not what your petition suggests.
(I used "soccer" to differentiate it from the American usage of "football".)
no offence meant
plus its football every where in the world, or american football hope that help you differentiate in future
Originally posted by moonbusWin loss ratios are a good metric.
Win ratios, rather than bulk sums, are a generally accepted measure of performance, and frankly I'm surprised the RHP site does not take account of this. I linked to another chess site which does, and that is the accepted standard.
I neither 'upped' nor 'downed' your petition. I think something should be done, but not what your petition suggests.
(I used "soccer" to differentiate it from the American usage of "football".)
But there are problems with that too.
What if a clan goes 1W 0L in a year.
Are they crowned champions ??
Of course a threshold can be set.
Still leaves problem with a clan like Easy Riders playing only 3 clans all year.
And so on and so on.
At the end of the day, clan feature is very informal.
Trying to regulate it with coding enhancements will always lead to another gap
This will result in human intervention as a form of policing.
Even the 200 point rating difference limit implemented this year has hampered other clans' ability to catch up to the frontrunner.
Site admin is faced with a choice.
Live with manual intervention or ....
Discontinue this feature.
I'm not happy with their inaction on this issue this year.
But I don't envy their position either.
Originally posted by mghrn55Still leaves problem with a clan like Easy Riders playing only 3 clans all year . Maghoober55
Win loss ratios are a good metric.
But there are problems with that too.
What if a clan goes 1W 0L in a year.
Are they crowned champions ??
Of course a threshold can be set.
Still leaves problem with a clan like Easy Riders playing only 3 clans all year.
And so on and so on.
At the end of the day, clan feature is very informal.
Trying to re ...[text shortened]... ot happy with their inaction on this issue this year.
But I don't envy their position either.
Please refrain from lying its unbecoming a gentlemanly game like chess, thank you.
