Clan System Request for Proposals

Originally posted by mghrn55
I have pointed this out in the past.
While not relevant to the clan issue,
individuals who enter tournaments and then resign their games en-masse are taking spots in the tournament away from subscribers who actually want to play tournament chess.

This continued behavior will negatively impact revenue for this site.

It is essential to separate clan ratings from tournament ratings to prevent this sort of knock-on effect which degrades both clans and tournaments.

Originally posted by roma45
6] if a game is won by time out without the other player moving then no point is awarded

Lets call them "dead players." Continued vigilance will be needed to spot suspicious activity. It would be helpful to track ratings and, if necessary, roll back a player's rating to a previous state if it is found that he had wins against dead players.

Originally posted by padger
I logged on this morning to message from Wycombe Al saying that because of the situation on this site with regards to the Clan problems and also the sand bagging he is leaving
I think he may be a bit early in his judgement but I can see where he is coming from
I am waiting to see how this will pan out before I follow him

A real shame, like yourself a player I have many games against.

A clan forum thread was initiated, with all clan leaders invited to comment

Some useful suggestions were proposed, before it disintegrated


A second thread was created using the best suggestions from the first

These were compiled, to eliminate duplication

Where there was division of thought, both views were presented


I hold the site admins in high regard, you've done excellent work

Hopefully, some of the suggestions will be useful and possible

Here's the list from the second thread:

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

Originally posted by Giannotti
A clan forum thread was initiated, with all clan leaders invited to comment

Some useful suggestions were proposed, before it disintegrated


A second thread was created using the best suggestions from the first

These were compiled, to eliminate duplication

Where there was division of thought, both views were presented


I hold the site admin ...[text shortened]... e winning clan at the end of the year receive a free subscription when their next renewal is due

Add to that list the proposal I submitted.

Use a separate formula for player rating update on completion of clan games.
The formula can be found in the FAQ's.
Use a smaller variance constant (K) to have a smaller rating change for completed clan games.
I had suggested setting K to 16 but that can be set as low as 8.
That would mean a rating increase or decrease of no more than 4 points for completed clan games between 2 equally rated opponents.

1. a clan should not reject a challenge from a clan which is in the table 1 to 5 steps behind them.
2. The understanding of loopsided games must be covered. A better clan with better players should play with his best players, also when the opponement have not so good players.
3. the ranking by netpoints should throw in the waste of paper bin.
4. The limit of games against an other clan should only exist, when the ranking is more than 10 places between the both clans.
5. a challenge should be at least with 5 members form each side.
6. each clan should have the opportunity to build 5-meber-teams. So you challenge the Teams in complete. You can challenge a team mor than once in the same time, when you have challenges the other existing teams of the clan, too. Every player could be only in one team. A Player can leave a team after 3 month, when he finished his last game. The leader has the possibility to inactive this player to set another player to the team. The inactive Player does not Play any game until he will leave the Team.

Last but not least, every draw should forbidden, unitl the 30 move is completed.

Note to Russ.

I would like to offer a general comment.
There have been many suggestions that will culminate in a "go forward" solution.
I am confident that whatever is adopted after analysis and costing will result in improvements to the clan feature.
And I applaud the efforts of Russ in stepping forward to push for a solution.
But this is a long-term solution.

There has been considerable concern amongst membership that this is tantamount to closing the barn doors after the horses have left.
There have been vows by some of non-renewal of subscriptions.

What is needed is a near term solution to the issue at hand.

There is a policing and/or refereeing protocol in place.
I know this because there were penalties issued in the past for abuse of a feature that basically runs on an honor system.

These penalties have been in the form of:
- clan suspensions in 2015.
- rollback of clan points. In the past before my time on this site. So I've heard.

So there is a precedent for refereeing the clan feature.
I respectfully request a site review of the activities of the 4 clans involved in the fiasco that has led to you getting involved twice this year.
1 - the enhancement to the clan feature in January that basically reflects acknowledgement by site administration that something improper occurred.
2 - Russ stepping in this month to address the issue once and for all.

I respectfully request a review of the 2016 clan results and a decision one way or the other.
I for my part will respect whatever decision comes down.
But a decision would be nice.

I apologize in advance if this post is in the wrong thread.
But this has to be put on the table.

With that .........

Happy New Year to all !!!!

At a minimum, I think your rating in the clan should be based on clan play only. I also think clans should have a minimum number of players, at least 4.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A system based on net clan ELO has to be implemented, this will kill sandbagging and lopsided challenges stone dead and force clan leaders to make much more fairer challenges.

Could you explain in simple terms how this would work