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

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Standard member drdon
    His Mateship
    02 Dec '10 15:41
    At the moment, clans are able to exceed their max 20 members involved in games by adding new members while any number existing members are nominated as "leaving clan." Members who are leaving the clan are rightly permitted to complete their games. A great improvement would be to change the existing rule to:

    No new clan member can be accepted until the total of all clan members including those in the process of leaving the clan is less than twenty.

    This would close the loophole that allows one clan to play with 24 members.
  2. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    02 Dec '10 16:12
    Originally posted by drdon
    At the moment, clans are able to exceed their max 20 members involved in games by adding new members while any number existing members are nominated as "leaving clan." Members who are leaving the clan are rightly permitted to complete their games. A great improvement would be to change the existing rule to:

    No new clan member can be accepted until the total ...[text shortened]... ss than twenty.

    This would close the loophole that allows one clan to play with 24 members.
    Clan scores were ruined on inception, didn't you get my memo?

    "I had clan 9. RHP decided to reward quantity over quality. With an 80+ win percentage my clan was behind other clans that lost most games but played hundreds more. Thus, I decided RHP clans were worthless, and still are."

    There is no way to fix it. For more details message No1.

    P-
  3. Standard member drdon
    His Mateship
    02 Dec '10 21:57
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    Clan scores were ruined on inception, didn't you get my memo?

    "I had clan 9. RHP decided to reward quantity over quality. With an 80+ win percentage my clan was behind other clans that lost most games but played hundreds more. Thus, I decided RHP clans were worthless, and still are."

    There is no way to fix it. For more details message No1.

    P-
    I disagree. I think the system is fixable with a bit of fine tuning such as closing the loophole mentioned. Many players on the site enjoy clan competition and will continue to do so once a few credibility issues are revisited.
  4. 03 Dec '10 13:18
    Originally posted by drdon
    At the moment, clans are able to exceed their max 20 members involved in games by adding new members while any number existing members are nominated as "leaving clan." Members who are leaving the clan are rightly permitted to complete their games. A great improvement would be to change the existing rule to:

    No new clan member can be accepted until the total ...[text shortened]... ss than twenty.

    This would close the loophole that allows one clan to play with 24 members.
    Agree but it needs a few caveats to prevent

    Members being booted/leaving leaving and not finalising the clan games and their opponent not taking a timeout win, thus leaving the clan in limbo.

    Members leaving the site and not playing anymore and their opponent not taking a timeout win, thus leaving the clan in limbo.

    Games being played by members who have left/been booted that no longer affect the overall result of the clan challenge.
  5. Standard member drdon
    His Mateship
    04 Dec '10 11:24
    Originally posted by adramforall
    Agree but it needs a few caveats to prevent

    Members being booted/leaving leaving and not finalising the clan games and their opponent not taking a timeout win, thus leaving the clan in limbo.

    Members leaving the site and not playing anymore and their opponent not taking a timeout win, thus leaving the clan in limbo.

    Games being played by members who have left/been booted that no longer affect the overall result of the clan challenge.
    These are very sensible caveats
  6. 06 Dec '10 07:48
    Originally posted by drdon
    These are very sensible caveats
    And easily fixed by having clan games automatically time-out as currently happens with tournaments.
  7. Subscriber Very Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    11 Dec '10 02:19
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    Clan scores were ruined on inception, didn't you get my memo?

    "I had clan 9. RHP decided to reward quantity over quality. With an 80+ win percentage my clan was behind other clans that lost most games but played hundreds more. Thus, I decided RHP clans were worthless, and still are."

    There is no way to fix it. For more details message No1.

    P-
    Quantity should also have a reward, I think they got that part correct.

    If you happen to be a lazy clan and don't want to play matches, why should you win with 100's of games less played?

    The clans that play the most games, should be in the running, those who want to play a few clan games should not expect to be on page one!

    Like I have said, there is no way to make everyone happy. Admins already changed some things. All that resulted is more crying about the rating system.
    You would know this if you were actually following what was going on. Did you vote?
  8. Subscriber Very Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    11 Dec '10 03:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by drdon
    At the moment, clans are able to exceed their max 20 members involved in games by adding new members while any number existing members are nominated as "leaving clan." Members who are leaving the clan are rightly permitted to complete their games. A great improvement would be to change the existing rule to:

    No new clan member can be accepted until the total ...[text shortened]... ss than twenty.

    This would close the loophole that allows one clan to play with 24 members.
    So far you guys in IVV are the only ones doing this. (24 at one point)

    How do you spell hypocrite?

    Are you back to your 20 players yet?
  9. 11 Dec '10 09:53
    Originally posted by Very Rusty
    Quantity should also have a reward...
    Quality wins over quantity every time, remember this.
  10. Standard member RevRSleeker
    CerebrallyChallenged
    11 Dec '10 16:28
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    NOTED text missing... Thus, I decided RHP clans were worthless, and still are."

    It depends entirely upon clan goals, if it's mere challenge oriented or perhaps much more, personally I place more onus on a 'rounded' forum ...informing, game analysis undertaken by those that enjoy going into depth, sharing their abilities with those less so.. whether they'd post in the public forum asking is doubtful at best, puzzles, general interest to all topics and so on. No, it's not as a public forum, they are too 'fragmented,' nothing you ask or mention can be relied upon, if you get the replies you want then great but a clan forum can be more relied upon, ( there are many here that are undermined and won't seek any form of aid again )...you can seek those you require in private forum, easily etc. No big ego's help but I'm getting carried away here as it's 'site ideas' and this merely an observation of clans and their operational goals..I'll sign off whilst I can
  11. Subscriber Very Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    11 Dec '10 20:06
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Quality wins over quantity every time, remember this.
    Ok fine! Lets look at it your way:

    I play 10 games I win all ten games!

    Now you on the other hand play 100 games you win 9, lose 91 games.

    YEAH I win!!
  12. 13 Dec '10 23:16
    Originally posted by Very Rusty
    So far you guys in IVV are the only ones doing this. (24 at one point)

    How do you spell hypocrite?

    Are you back to your 20 players yet?
    Again you miss the point.

    IVV were instrumental in getting this in place, to show clans that had more than 20 members playing for them at time.

    IVV are also asking for the loophole in the system that allows more than 20 "playing" members, to be closed, albeit some caveats need to be in place to prevent leaving/kicked members from drawing out games and preventing a clan from being at full strength.

    There is nothing hypocritical about it.

    There are several clans in the top 20 with more than 21 members.
  13. Subscriber Very Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    13 Dec '10 23:49 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by adramforall
    Again you miss the point.

    IVV were instrumental in getting this in place, to show clans that had more than 20 members playing for them at time.

    IVV are also asking for the loophole in the system that allows more than 20 "playing" members, to be closed, albeit some caveats need to be in place to prevent leaving/kicked members from drawing out games ...[text shortened]... hypocritical about it.

    There are several clans in the top 20 with more than 21 members.
    I miss nothing, ok very little~!

    Yea IVV had 24...Still 23 playing active games last we looked.

    Who are the others besides IVV with more than 20?

    You should all have points taken from you!~

    We (Metallica) have 20 players ONLY with active clan games!
  14. 15 Dec '10 13:07
    Originally posted by Very Rusty
    I miss nothing, ok very little~!

    Yea IVV had 24...Still 23 playing active games last we looked.

    Who are the others besides IVV with more than 20?

    You should all have points taken from you!~

    We (Metallica) have 20 players ONLY with active clan games!
    Here a little hint

    Visit the clan home page.

    Click on Clan Amsterdamn (19 + 2 leavers) = 21

    Click on Clan with a Mission (20 + 2 leavers) =22

    Click on The Drunken Pawns (20 + 2 leavers) =22

    Click on King Gets Kicked (19 + 2 leavers) = 21

    As for Metallica, they did have 21 at one point when adim left, but of course that doesn't count does it!
  15. Subscriber Very Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    16 Dec '10 02:30
    Originally posted by adramforall
    Here a little hint

    Visit the clan home page.

    Click on Clan Amsterdamn (19 + 2 leavers) = 21

    Click on Clan with a Mission (20 + 2 leavers) =22

    Click on The Drunken Pawns (20 + 2 leavers) =22

    Click on King Gets Kicked (19 + 2 leavers) = 21

    As for Metallica, they did have 21 at one point when adim left, but of course that doesn't count does it!
    You forgot to add IVV with 20 + 3

    OR to mention it was 20 + 4 at one point.

    None of it is good.

    I am sure we can agree on that.