suggestions for clan govenance

manipulation, collusion, and counter collusion are a matter of fact

clan play has become more difficult and less fun

there's a need for this forum


i cannot moderate, but i will try to keep things moving in a positive direction


two bits of light humor to begin

'a camel is a horse designed by a committee'

...and trying to get the clan leaders on this site to agree is 'like herding cats'


please don't criticize each other

the system needs help

ideas have been put forward

we're here to test their merit, to refine and maybe adopt what is most useful


if we ask for reform, we'll most likely to get results if...

the change is simple, feasible, and does not require a large effort on the part of the site

once implemented, it does not require excessive maintenance on the part of the administrators

the sense of the change is self evident, and all or most of us agree on it


what follows is a list of suggestions from the previous thread

the most common have been floated to the top


i tried to combine and condense, without changing intent or meaning

the '(or,' device has been used when clan leaders had different views on the same issue

if i missed the gist, please correct me, and know that it was not done out of personal bias


that being said ...here they are


clan individual ratings should be uncoupled from RHP non-clan individual ratings, ELO is proposed as a respected and useful rating system

X number of clan games should be played with a provisional rating to ascertain a clan player's true strength, these initial matches do not count

no draws or resignations will be permitted until 30 moves have been made (or, permit no clan games to be resigned)

clan players that have not moved for 30 days will become unavailable for challenges

set a maximum rating differential of X between clan challenge opponents (currently 200 points, 100 points also proposed) (or, let this be at the clan leader's discretion)

each player should only be allowed to play for one clan (or, do not permit challenge against a clan where the other leader is also a member of their clan)

hide the results of a clan challenges until the match is complete

points for winning a challenge are allocated as is currently done (or, winner takes it all, for any drawn challenge each team gets 0 points)

clans should have a minimum requirement of X players, and are not permitted to issue challenge unless the requirement is met

a site referee, or a committee of proven clan leaders, should be set up to review clan play and place appropriate bans and cautions

set a point limit, so no clan can run away with the totals

prevent clans from starting challenges if they are rated X over the challenged clan

set a maximum number of challenges between clans involving the same players (currently this is 3)

score clan performance on net average rating change, this will give smaller clans, or slower clans, a measure of equality

members of the winning clan at the end of the year receive a free subscription when their next renewal is due


15 talking points

discussion on these and more are welcome


start where you like


it might be most productive to deliberate on one point per post


peace
~leo

I do not see anything I can agree with and will wait for a more sensible suggestion or for the insulters to make this Forum go the same way all others do

Originally posted by padger
I do not see anything I can agree with and will wait for a more sensible suggestion or for the insulters to make this Forum go the same way all others do

Originally posted by Very Rusty
Padger,
I didn't notice anyone ask you to be on the committee if one were to be formed. I think with the right Clan Leaders on the committee that change is possible. This is not to say if you were on it, you couldn't make a positive contribution. I am sure you have many good ideas to share.

Regards,
-VR

A couple of observations on the debate so far:

With regard to ratings:

The RHP rating reflects the performance across the whole site so creating a clan rating strikes me as over burdensome. It would have one immediately bigger problem which is that any new clan rating will be provisional for a period and would lead confusion until the rating was established. Personally I think a rating floor of 200 points below 5 year maximum would be more effective and probably easier to code.

I don't know but I doubt that coding to identify and prohibit clan collusion is going to be easily achievable and thus I reckon the idea of a clan challenge moderator or referee has merit. I think that such a person should NOT be a clan member so as to remain impartial. They should have a clear terms of reference and the power to nullify any challenge where the points have clearly been obtained outside the generally accepted cut and thrust of challenge setting. They should have sufficient chess knowledge to be able to identify games that have been thrown for collusion purposes, and perhaps powers to recommend more serious sanctions to Russ in the event of total anarchy.

In the Help : clans Russ has explained the challenge process in broad brush terms. Although not stated overtly it implies to me a certain "buyer beware" aspect for clan leaders accepting challenges. I don't believe this aspect of the clan challenge set up should be entirely programmed out any more than I believe clans whose only priority is to provide games to its membership from similar strength opponents should be hamstrung by the system either.

I fear the other thread will just turn out the same way.

A couple more safeguards in would be appreciated - whatever you do there will always be someone unhappy.

However, there are a couple of decent points and if it gets some people being more civilised than that is a decent start

I applaud your efforts 🙂

Originally posted by padger
If the Clan leaders really wanted change they would soon sort things out
All they really want is more of the same
The points awarded situation is rubbish
The clan collusion is rubbish
The only positive thing to change since I joined this site is the 200 points difference rule
Which I would change to 100
As I said before the most active clans are rewar ...[text shortened]... I haven't been asked to be on the clan committee
Has anyone been officially asked to be on it ?

Originally posted by Silverstriker
I fear the other thread will just turn out the same way.

A couple more safeguards in would be appreciated - whatever you do there will always be someone unhappy.

However, there are a couple of decent points and if it gets some people being more civilised than that is a decent start

I applaud your efforts 🙂

Originally posted by Very Rusty
Padger,
I didn't notice anyone ask you to be on the committee if one were to be formed. I think with the right Clan Leaders on the committee that change is possible. This is not to say if you were on it, you couldn't make a positive contribution. I am sure you have many good ideas to share.

Regards,
-VR

Originally posted by Wycombe Al
i actually think that it should not involve clan leaders as they would not be so impartial, i think members with a proven track record over the years of clan play with no leadership would be a good starting point otherwise its just going to descend into squabbles as they forum currently does. i would go with all clan leaders being able to nominate someone for the committee as a starting point

Originally posted by Ragwort
A couple of observations on the debate so far:

With regard to ratings:

The RHP rating reflects the performance across the whole site so creating a clan rating strikes me as over burdensome. It would have one immediately bigger problem which is that any new clan rating will be provisional for a period and would lead confusion until the rating was establ ...[text shortened]... ames to its membership from similar strength opponents should be hamstrung by the system either.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I don't think it would be a problem at all, there is already different ratings, current, five year, ninety day average and tournament entry. One could keep ones present rating and only new players would be subject to a provisional rating as is the case already.

A move to a system based on the rise and fall of ELO would in my opinion revolutionise the clan system and do away with most of the problems.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I don't think it would be a problem at all, there is already different ratings, current, five year, ninety day average and tournament entry. One could keep ones present rating and only new players would be subject to a provisional rating as is the case already.

A move to a system based on the rise and fall of ELO would in my opinion revolutionise the clan system and do away with most of the problems.

Originally posted by padger
What is ELO and how does it work ?
I have only ever played chess on line so have no idea what you are on about

Originally posted by Ragwort
ELO is a rating system invented by Arpad Elo. It is used in other sports as well as chess. This site uses it to calculate ratings here as does FIDE ICCF USCF ICC although they may have added tweaks to the formula. Chess.com uses another system/formula called glick system. The RHP elo formula is explained in the faq FAQ.