suggestions for clan govenance

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dude I am more worried about what I am going to wear to my inauguration as leader of the Chess King's of the Internet.

wear your birthday suit
I'm sure that will excite 55

Originally posted by lemondrop
wear your birthday suit
I'm sure that will excite 55

LOL the ol codger might have a heart attack with the excitement

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
LOL the ol codger might have a heart attack with the excitement

😀

Originally posted by lemondrop
😀

Can you and carrobie keep your fantasies and dirty talk out of the forum.

Just text each other or something. You're making me sick.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dude I am more worried about what I am going to wear to my inauguration as leader of the Chess King's of the Internet.

If you're thinking of dressing like McTayto's avatar, you should be worried !! 😀

Originally posted by mghrn55
If you're thinking of dressing like McTayto's avatar, you should be worried !! 😀

easy there fellow, try not to get excited!

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.

Very good points. Limiting match ratings to 100 or 200 only makes it difficult to get games WITHOUT improper matches. I have a strong 1800 player with a high of 1900+. He plays tournaments and after a dozen timeouts from medical things, he is 1650. If I match him to 1800 as he should be, my average challenge rating takes a dive; or the other clans goes up to far for that tool to work in analysis.

My own rating is not sandbagged. It is "playing too many games to keep up with", therefore my rating suffers. You should use my 5 year average to judge my abilities.

Buyer beware has my vote.

Originally posted by dsmith
Very good points. Limiting match ratings to 100 or 200 only makes it difficult to get games WITHOUT improper matches. I have a strong 1800 player with a high of 1900+. He plays tournaments and after a dozen timeouts from medical things, he is 1650.

Don't even use points. How about like a ladder game? Clan has to challenge the very next one up, winners of the challenge, gets to move up; loser moves down...one place. Two challenges in place at one time that way NO NEED TO COUNT POINTS while a competitive system still in place.
Draw would mean a do over but just once (challenge). If the lower clan looses again, they drop below their lower neighbor. That way two clans can't plug up the upward motion. The top clan can only sit there until the second place clan knocks them down.

This would mean Easy and Metallica always playing each other, not bottom dwellers.

So there are enough games; make the only clan challenge every player plays 2 games with every other player; wins vs. wins, highest number wins challenge.

Since rating vary, like the ladders, maybe a 10 position window.

Hi Folks,

I've mulled over the suggestion for days, and I have to say I agree with almost every one, and I think there's be an improvement in clan play if they're adopted

My original idea was naive, and didn't really address the real issues


For the ones where two opposing points of view were presented:

Maximum rating differential... I like the 200 point variance we've got

- I have two 2000+ players, it'd be hard to find challenges for them without it

One player, one clan (no challenges if the other leader is a member of yours)

- I can go either way on this one, I like the first better, but I'm flexible

Points for winning are allocated as is currently done (or, winner takes it all)

- A draw is a good outcome, it says the challenge was not just fair but equal


The recent posts from dsmith

- to focus the limit on a player's 5 year rather than current rating has merit

- treating the clan challenges as a ladder system

on the second point, i haven't had any experience but i'd like to see some input


Thanks
~leo

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dude I am more worried about what I am going to wear to my inauguration as leader of the Chess King's of the Internet.

robbie,
Just wear Mctayto's dunce hat. I think that would look better on you than him.

-VR

Originally posted by Giannotti
Hi Folks,

I've mulled over the suggestion for days, and I have to say I agree with almost every one, and I think there's be an improvement in clan play if they're adopted

My original idea was naive, and didn't really address the real issues


For the ones where two opposing points of view were presented:

Maximum rating differential... I like th ...[text shortened]... the second point, i haven't had any experience but i'd like to see some input


Thanks
~leo

I still think it should be 100 on a five year average but would settle for 200
The points for winning need sorting out
Where a clan at the moment can win 10 - 8 and get 20 points and the losing team gets -20 is not fair and never will be
It should be 10 +(a winners points ( perhaps 5 ))
Losers 8
Clan position on a ladder situation would not work
I go back to my original idea of clans can only get winning points playing clans on the same page
This would not only sort out collusion but also get a real idea who is the top team

Originally posted by padger
I still think it should be 100 on a five year average but would settle for 200
The points for winning need sorting out
Where a clan at the moment can win 10 - 8 and get 20 points and the losing team gets -20 is not fair and never will be
It should be 10 +(a winners points ( perhaps 5 ))
Losers 8
Clan position on a ladder situation would not work
I go b ...[text shortened]... same page
This would not only sort out collusion but also get a real idea who is the top team

I like the idea of clans only getting points for playing clans on the same page at the beginning of the year and then adjust every 3 months. That would stop the collusion between the sleazy riders and their three sisters dead in its tracks.

This thread is starting to lose traction.

I'd like to believe that we can achieve a list of suggestions for the site administrators before the end of the year, so that 2017, won't turn out like 2016.

If you're with me on this, please express your thoughts on what we've got so far.

Thanks,
~leo

Originally posted by Giannotti
This thread is starting to lose traction.

I'd like to believe that we can achieve a list of suggestions for the site administrators before the end of the year, so that 2017, won't turn out like 2016.

If you're with me on this, please express your thoughts on what we've got so far.

Thanks,
~leo

As long as your list has methods to prevent Metallica sandbagging and throwing games in won challenges then count me in 😉

Originally posted by Giannotti
This thread is starting to lose traction.

I'd like to believe that we can achieve a list of suggestions for the site administrators before the end of the year, so that 2017, won't turn out like 2016.

If you're with me on this, please express your thoughts on what we've got so far.

Thanks,
~leo

While the suggestions are well intentioned, they do not address challenges being thrown.

The focus has been on the perceived notion of sandbagging by certain individuals.

There has been no suggestions on how to deal with some clans throwing challenge points at other clans.

I offered something that has not been adopted to your list.

That being that any challenge that has games not lasting 3 moves be declared null and void !!
Imperfect because perpetrators can work around it.
But this should be a baseline for discussion.

The suggestions that have been put out so far will only choke the clan system.
It has already become more difficult to set challenges because of administrative burdens put on them with the last set of "improvements".

Sandbagging has become the poster child of grievance mongering by the malcontents on this site.