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

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Subscriber shortcircuit
    The Energizer
    10 Apr '17 18:33
    I have sent two replies to this offering regarding the choices we have been offered. None of the choices suitably handle the situation adequately. I have not gotten a response to either PM from Russ or anyone.

    For those who are not aware, these are the choices the clan leaders get to cast a vote for:

    Please choose your preference for any future change to the clan ratings

    1. Just leave it as it is. (Annual net points)

    2. Just leave it as it is (Annual net points) and punish any prior unsporting behaviour.

    3. A new variant of the current Annual net points rating.

    4. An Elo rating variation, similar to player rating (As previewed in recent weeks.)

    5. A formalised competition with scheduled challenges and net points variation.

    6. Another solution, nothing above works for me.


    In my opinion, regardless of any change that is made, there should be punishment administered to the cheats form last year. I am not alone in that sentiment. To see there is only one selection that includes this punishment, sure narrows the gap as to selections.

    I would really be inclined to vote #3 IF punishment for last year's cheaters was incorporated.

    I think it is easy to see why the ELO idea will not work. It will stagnate the entire system and it will effectively destroy the system because at least half of the clans would be left in the cold.

    I am for modifying the system in ways that make sense. To blindly vote for choice #6 without any idea of what you are voting for is silly.

    Selection #5 also has not been laid out as to how it would be implemented, so how can you vote for that? You can't.

    Because of the way this was presented, I have cast my vote for #2, because it is the only solution that punishes the cheats, and that we know what we are getting. I am on record as stating how this could be modified effectively.

    Whatever change we end up with, everyone will play under, so that doesn't really worry me. I do think if the wrong changes are made, it will destroy the clan system as it stands. That is my opinion. But, I want to see the cheats punished first and foremost...and I will press for that in whatever solution we end up with.

    I wanted to give my explanation of why I voted the way I did, before robbie gives his explanation of why he assumes he knows why I did.
  2. 10 Apr '17 18:57
    I would vote for option 3 with the punishment option attached to it.

    However, if the choices stand as they are, then I have to support option 2.
    Option 3 by itself means that the debacle of 2016 will go unpunished.

    Site has already taken an important first step by fixing the clan table for 2015.

    The precedent is clearly set.
  3. Subscriber padger On Vacation
    10 Apr '17 18:58
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    I have sent two replies to this offering regarding the choices we have been offered. None of the choices suitably handle the situation adequately. I have not gotten a response to either PM from Russ or anyone.

    For those who are not aware, these are the choices the clan leaders get to cast a vote for:

    [b]Please choose your preference for any future ...[text shortened]... I voted the way I did, before robbie gives his explanation of why he assumes he knows why I did.
    I agree the choices are not exactly what I want either
    I voted for option 3 but wanted the offenders punished for what they did last year
    There was not a choice for that
    It would appear that what ever solution the vote comes out with it will not satisfy everyone
    Perhaps there should be a different way of voting where you get to have option 1 with option 2 for example
  4. Subscriber Very Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    10 Apr '17 19:09
    I believe 2 & 3 would be a good solution and a very good start to fixing the problem.

    I don't know if this is just for clan leaders to vote on, but that is my opinion as a long time Clan member and player.

    -VR
  5. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    10 Apr '17 21:22
    I am one of the malcontents that voted for choice 6. This was to protest the decision not to give players a separate rating for clan play. In my view, this is an essential step in any meaningful reform.
  6. Subscriber shortcircuit
    The Energizer
    10 Apr '17 21:37
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    I am one of the malcontents that voted for choice 6. This was to protest the decision not to give players a separate rating for clan play. In my view, this is an essential step in any meaningful reform.
    Of course, Russ has already stated that he will not ever do that because of the the
    cumbersome amount of coding he would have to do. He was quite emphatic on that,
    But, I do agree with what you say, and that was one of the things I originally requested.
  7. Subscriber roma45
    st johnstone
    10 Apr '17 22:15
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    I have sent two replies to this offering regarding the choices we have been offered. None of the choices suitably handle the situation adequately. I have not gotten a response to either PM from Russ or anyone.

    For those who are not aware, these are the choices the clan leaders get to cast a vote for:

    [b]Please choose your preference for any future ...[text shortened]... I voted the way I did, before robbie gives his explanation of why he assumes he knows why I did.
    out of the six choices number one seems a waste of time

    i voted for two there has to be a roll back
    not as much as a punishment but to set an example and follow previous actions
    this should have done BEFORE any ideas to improve the system was put forward.

    strategic ultimatum got severly punished for collusion in 2015 for a fraction of the blatant collusion between the easy riders, arrow, breaking bad and anti metallica did in 2016, involving most of the 2015 players utter disgrace it was not sorted straight away
    no protest excuse
    no time limit excuse
    no amnesty

    collusion points removed at the very least serve as a punishment and deterant to future cheats.
    for me there should have been a seperate vote just a simple yes or no,
    should clans be punished for unsporting behaviour? then a vote on a new scoring system,

    russ has said clans did collusion last year clans ahve been suspended and points removed before, i dont understand why it was not done again, players have left because of no action been taken.attitude.

    number two is the only option i would have voted three if there was also the punishment add on
  8. Subscriber padger On Vacation
    10 Apr '17 22:17
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    Of course, Russ has already stated that he will not ever do that because of the the
    cumbersome amount of coding he would have to do. He was quite emphatic on that,
    But, I do agree with what you say, and that was one of the things I originally requested.
    He did but I think he had got the wrong idea on this
    He seemed to think that we were asking for a separate rating for each clan we were in
    and this was not the case
  9. 11 Apr '17 00:15
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    Of course, Russ has already stated that he will not ever do that because of the the
    cumbersome amount of coding he would have to do. He was quite emphatic on that,
    But, I do agree with what you say, and that was one of the things I originally requested.
    I don't think the coding was any more cumbersome than creating a clan rating.

    I think there was a misunderstanding about the clan rating.
    He understood clan rating when we were asking for rating for clan games.

    Confusing the issue more was some individuals misinterpreting a clan rating for an ELO system.

    I have no problem with an ELO system.
    Let's apply it to player ratings for clan games.
    But Russ's formula in the FAQ's is virtually the same thing.
    The term ELO should be removed from option 4.
    Then option 4 should be removed from consideration.
  10. Subscriber BigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    11 Apr '17 01:01
    Originally posted by padger
    He did but I think he had got the wrong idea on this
    He seemed to think that we were asking for a separate rating for each clan we were in
    and this was not the case
    Right. The request is much simpler than Russ described. He had it resetting every time a player joined a different clan. We just wanted a clan rating that stays with the individual regardless of what clan (if any) they are in.
  11. 11 Apr '17 01:17
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    Right. The request is much simpler than Russ described. He had it resetting every time a player joined a different clan. We just wanted a clan rating that stays with the individual regardless of what clan (if any) they are in.
    Exactly !!
    Plus also covers players belonging to multiple clans.
  12. 11 Apr '17 01:57
    i voted for option 3, but would have liked it better if it included a point rollback

    ELO, by itself, kills the incentive to play against a lower ranked clan

    if adopted, it might be improved with additional metrics like gross and net points also considered
  13. 11 Apr '17 02:00
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    I have sent two replies to this offering regarding the choices we have been offered. None of the choices suitably handle the situation adequately. I have not gotten a response to either PM from Russ or anyone.

    For those who are not aware, these are the choices the clan leaders get to cast a vote for:

    [b]Please choose your preference for any future ...[text shortened]... I voted the way I did, before robbie gives his explanation of why he assumes he knows why I did.
    please define unsporting behavior
    it seems overly broad
  14. Subscriber shortcircuit
    The Energizer
    11 Apr '17 02:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by lemondrop
    please define unsporting behavior
    it seems overly broad
    unsporting behavior = those who colluded to falsely gain points for the purposes of attempting to win.
    Anyone who participated in this endeavor would qualify. This means
    robbie and the three sisters at a minimum.

    I am really surprised you had not figured that out considering it has been written about
    tirelessly for the last 14 months or so.
  15. Subscriber padger On Vacation
    11 Apr '17 04:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by lemondrop
    please define unsporting behavior
    it seems overly broad
    Resigning games to reduce your rating springs to mind
    Sound familiar ????