Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    06 Sep '09 05:02
    I think that there are more clans than there are leaders interested in leading them and members interested in joining them and whose membership is interested in continuing to play for them. If this is true, then it seems awkward to allow the creation of new clans endlessly, as all subs are allowed to be in four clans and be leader of one clan, an overabundance of clans is really an issue.

    This has been said before and it's worth considering: NO NEW CLANS.

    No new clans until the clans we have are either actively led or are populated with at least 5 members each.

    The option of creating a new clan is simply halted for a time. That's all it takes.

    We can have a clan exchange mode.

    Some leader wants to give up leadership, some other sub can offer to take it over.

    Someone is looking for a clan, fine, they can post their interest and clan leaders can invite them.

    If we run out of a sufficient number of clan openings, or clans, then we can resume an open clan creation option again.

    I don't see a downside.
  2. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    06 Sep '09 05:54
    Originally posted by coquette
    I think that there are more clans than there are leaders interested in leading them and members interested in joining them and whose membership is interested in continuing to play for them. If this is true, then it seems awkward to allow the creation of new clans endlessly, as all subs are allowed to be in four clans and be leader of one clan, an overabunda ...[text shortened]... , or clans, then we can resume an open clan creation option again.

    I don't see a downside.
    Awkward why?

    There are tons of inactive player accounts. Nobody complains about them being 'awkward', nor do they propose a temporary freeze on creation of new accounts. Why should the clan situation be different?

    If server space is an issue, I'm sure Russ will just go blow away lots of inactive clans. But I seriously doubt it is.
  3. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    06 Sep '09 06:50
    Originally posted by coquette
    I think that there are more clans than there are leaders interested in leading them and members interested in joining them and whose membership is interested in continuing to play for them. If this is true, then it seems awkward to allow the creation of new clans endlessly, as all subs are allowed to be in four clans and be leader of one clan, an overabunda ...[text shortened]... , or clans, then we can resume an open clan creation option again.

    I don't see a downside.
    agreed.

    There have been some suggestions for advertising unused clans, it could mandatory to take one of them to show the skill. The statistic values could be zeroed without touching the old results.
  4. 06 Sep '09 16:50
    Originally posted by coquette
    I think that there are more clans than there are leaders interested in leading them and members interested in joining them and whose membership is interested in continuing to play for them. If this is true, then it seems awkward to allow the creation of new clans endlessly, as all subs are allowed to be in four clans and be leader of one clan, an overabunda ...[text shortened]... , or clans, then we can resume an open clan creation option again.

    I don't see a downside.
    It will never work!!

    Currently there at 25,218 clans, of which only 264 are active clans that have created a challenge within the last 30 days.

    To populate all 25,218 clans with a minimum of 5 players would require a minimum of 5,046 active players giving each player the ability to be in 4 clans and lead a clan.

    At present there are 35,835 players listed using MAP. If 20% of these were subscribers that mean that 7,167 would be available to join a clan. To get a minimum of 5,046 to do so would mean that 71% of possible members would need to be willing to join a clan.

    Going back to the fact that there are only 264 active clans and assuming 20 members per clan, this only give a membership of 5,280 assuming that 1 person per clan with no overlap.

    Barely enough to cover and would force people to have to join clans they maybe didn't want to.
  5. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    06 Sep '09 20:53
    I am always in awe of adramforall and his ability to analyze and communicate.

    I only have one minor point: some clan leaders, such as myelf, created a clan to see what it was like to be a clan leader and to help advise a clan leader. Then, once you've started a clan, you realize there's no getting out. Well, there is a way out, so long as you let the admins know you wish you hadn't created the clan and want them to knock it out and you haven't played any games, but that's pretty subtle for a newbie to know.

    I think that adramforall's excellent numerical data point to why we can stop the creation of new ones. Just take on some old one, that's all. It will give a way out for the clan leaders who would like to give them up.

    Why not? (Don't answer. I don't really mean that as a question. I don't have an argument or any reasoning. It's just a suggestion, honest.)
  6. Standard member Mctayto
    Highlander
    06 Sep '09 21:26
    The real answer is to find a way to delete all inactive clans without losing the game archives. Transfer all games from these clans to a clan called deleted clan games or something. Meantime only allow new clans to be created after 6 months membership or somehing like that.
  7. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    06 Sep '09 22:32
    Originally posted by Mctayto
    The real answer is to find a way to delete all inactive clans without losing the game archives. Transfer all games from these clans to a clan called deleted clan games or something. Meantime only allow new clans to be created after 6 months membership or somehing like that.
    This seems like an excellent solution! Deleting clans won't delete the game record. The clan scoring system recrord is the problem, of course. Now I see that.

    If the "deleted clans" categorical graveyard of defunct clans could work, it would be a good solution.
  8. Subscriber KingDavid403
    King David
    08 Sep '09 15:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by coquette
    I think that there are more clans than there are leaders interested in leading them and members interested in joining them and whose membership is interested in continuing to play for them. If this is true, then it seems awkward to allow the creation of new clans endlessly, as all subs are allowed to be in four clans and be leader of one clan, an overabunda , or clans, then we can resume an open clan creation option again.

    I don't see a downside.
    I personally don't see any problems with the way it is now. And I have no problem with new clans, or clans with fewer members, I wish there was more. Some smaller clans grow into bigger ones and make it, Some don't. That's just the way it is.
    Not much more than a year ago we had well over 300 active clans, now we are down to 264 or so. Quite a drop. About 50 clans, around 15% drop in clans. To I, we need more new clans.
    And as Swiss pointed out there really shouldn't be a problem with anyone with inactive clans except for maybe Russ and Chris due to server space. But I doubt that's a problem.

    My vote would be to leave it the way it is.
  9. 08 Sep '09 17:01
    Originally posted by KingDavid403
    I personally don't see any problems with the way it is now. And I have no problem with new clans, or clans with fewer members, I wish there was more. Some smaller clans grow into bigger ones and make it, Some don't. That's just the way it is.
    Not much more than a year ago we had well over 300 active clans, now we are down to 264 or so. Quite a dr ...[text shortened]... rver space. But I doubt that's a problem.

    My vote would be to leave it the way it is.
    I agree, the inactive clans affect no-one.

    Should someone wish to start a new clan and the name is already taken, then there should be an option after contacting site admins, to usurp the current leader, if they are inactive for say 3 or 6 months or no longer a subscriber.

    This would allow the clan to become active again.

    Other than that I see no reason to change the current situation and agree that new clans can only be good for the clan competition.
  10. Subscriber KingDavid403
    King David
    08 Sep '09 18:28 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by adramforall
    I agree, the inactive clans affect no-one.

    Should someone wish to start a new clan and the name is already taken, then there should be an option after contacting site admins, to usurp the current leader, if they are inactive for say 3 or 6 months or no longer a subscriber.

    This would allow the clan to become active again.

    Other than that I se ...[text shortened]... change the current situation and agree that new clans can only be good for the clan competition.
    Should someone wish to start a new clan and the name is already taken, then there should be an option after contacting site admins, to usurp the current leader, if they are inactive for say 3 or 6 months or no longer a subscriber.

    Here's my problem with this idea,

    My RHP nick is KingDavid403. Our clan is named after King David and his Mighty warriors of the Christian bible.
    There's a few King Davids playing on RHP, In fact KingDavid403 is computer generated threw other computer software. What if I had to leave chess for awhile, or our clan wanted to take a break for a year or 6 months or something? and then have some other King David come along that didn't know a thing about clan leading, or anyone for that matter, and then usurp our clan?
    I say just leave it as is.
    If there's already a inactive clan with the name you want to name your new clan, then just change the name slightly so there won't be two clans with the exact same name. As is now.
  11. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    08 Sep '09 22:44
    okay
  12. Standard member Mctayto
    Highlander
    08 Sep '09 23:19
    If you are not moving forward then you are falling backwards