Clan System Request for Proposals

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So you have no evidence that a single point was gained through prearranging the outcome of even a single game, thank you. Now I would be pleased if you returned to the theme of why the thread was created.

That would be between you and your god whoever he might be

I wouldn't be able to sleep at night

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.

I would like it if someone could explain to me how this would work
As far as I can see this would make it ideal for someone to get together with say 2 or 3 other clans and then get 100% in the first couple of months
Then spend the rest of the year counting your blessings waiting for the plaudits to come in

Originally posted by padger
I would like it if someone could explain to me how this would work
As far as I can see this would make it ideal for someone to get together with say 2 or 3 other clans and then get 100% in the first couple of months
Then spend the rest of the year counting your blessings waiting for the plaudits to come in

Carrobies been there.......done that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So you have no evidence that a single point was gained through prearranging the outcome of even a single game, thank you. Now I would be pleased if you returned to the theme of why the thread was created.

You might want to take this to the clan forum.

You seem to be having trouble getting past 2016.

Having doubts about 2016 results ?? 😲

Originally posted by padger
I have just gone through the post here you have contributed 47 times on a topic that you do not support and show no interest in paying a subscription to participate in
I have had posts on this subject removed as have others
I think all your posts should be removed as interference on this matter

FYI, I was a clan member, I still have a clan game running from the time before I let my sub expire, and, in another thread, I published my reasons for letting my sub expire: namely, on account of the poor state of the clan feature at this web site (both the poor spirit in which some posters contribute to the clan forum, and the systematic flaws in the system itself). I would consider paying for this service if it got markedly better. That entitles me to contribute. If you don't like it, skip my posts.

Originally posted by moonbus
FYI, I was a clan member, I still have a clan game running from the time before I let my sub expire, and, in another thread, I published my reasons for letting my sub expire: namely, on account of the poor state of the clan feature at this web site (both the poor spirit in which some posters contribute to the clan forum, and the systematic flaws in the syst ...[text shortened]... if it got markedly better. That entitles me to contribute. If you don't like it, skip my posts.

You played 6 clan games in 5 years
You didn't participate before why now
Perhaps you would like to be in Robbies Clan

Originally posted by moonbus
mghrn55 wrote:

<<
I would like to toss this out there.

1 - do away with the gross point total. No longer relevant.

2 - use the rating change (rounded to nearest point) for each player in the challenge. ELO system will work. In-house formula will work too. Not that much different from ELO. Agree on a suitable K-value.

3 - do not use clan avera ...[text shortened]... r the whole challenge, not just the 12 wins (whatever may be going on with net ratings changes)?

Hi Moonbus.

Finally responding to your questions.

First of all, I used one of your suggestions as a baseline for my proposal.

To answer your question on point 4, I will clarify point 3.

This is where the rating changes in individual players would be used as changing the clan average rating.
To get around the problem with a starting point for clan average rating for each clan, I suggested that every clan start at 0 at start of each year.
Then have the ratings changes for each player from each clan game in the challenge count as scoring points.
Meaning that player A wins against player B raises/lowers each players' points by say 8 points. These count as points add or subtracted from each clan.
If every clan has a starting point of 0 at start of the year, we don't have to worry about each clan's average rating.

Now to point 4.
In addition to scoring points from rating changes, I also proposed a prize for the challenge itself.
Not the current 2 points per player today but, let's say 1 point per player.
For example, a 10 player challenge won by a clan is worth + or - 10 points to the clan depending on win or loss. And then add to this the accumulated ratings changes from all he games.

I will state a reason for this by way of example.
A clan can win a 10 player challenge by a score of 11-9 and gain 10 points accumulated from rating formula.
Another clan can win a 1 player challenge 2-0 and gain 12 points.
Larger challenges can cease to be worthwhile and they might disappear.

We want to keep the volume of challenges of all kinds healthy.

This would represent a hybrid solution which would solve the game dumping issue and continue to encourage challenges of all sizes.
Including larger challenges

Thoughts.

match ups.... under the current system of winner takes all... it is highly important for clan leaders to have an edge going into a challenge...
so for example.... in a 9 vs 9 challenge
if the clan leader can make it such that his clan are favorites in at least 5 of the 9 match ups then its in his best interest to have the challenge take place...
most good clan leaders have this mentality and take their chances against the clan leaders not too bothered to look at the challenges in great detail...
I for example am happy to take 10 vs 10 challenges when we are favorites in 5/10... because then it really is a 50/50 challenge hoping for no skulls etc against you.
if we change the points allocation of making every game matter... then i would be willing to accept challenges that were say 40/60 not in my favor... because at least then i would know my 40% winners get rewarded a bit...

Originally posted by padger
You played 6 clan games in 5 years
You didn't participate before why now
Perhaps you would like to be in Robbies Clan

Yeah, but they were good games. I would like to play some more, but not on a tilted playing field. I discovered the clan feature rather late in the day. Does that invalidate my desire to play?

Maybe Russ would like to have some fresh ideas from people willing to put their money where their mouths are. It is a shame when good people leave, and several have already.

BTW, did you actually count all my posts? That's weird, man. Really weird.

Originally posted by mghrn55
Hi Moonbus.

Finally responding to your questions.

First of all, I used one of your suggestions as a baseline for my proposal.

To answer your question on point 4, I will clarify point 3.

This is where the rating changes in individual players would be used as changing the clan average rating.
To get around the problem with a starting point for cl ...[text shortened]... sue and continue to encourage challenges of all sizes.
Including larger challenges

Thoughts.

In principle, I am not averse to some sort of hybrid solution. It probably has the best chance of finding broad support among the clans.

Point 3: starting the season at zero for all clans, and tracking the ratings, seems viable. The clan with the highest plus rating change over the season is prima facie the winner. This allows the possibility of negative scores for the season, as well as multiple equal scores.

Point 4: still seems to me to award points to players who lose games. e.g. 10 points to a clan which won 6 games and lost 4, awards 4 points to players who lost their games.

Maybe we could consider some other variation on the theme of "challenge bonus." For example, awarding 6 points to the winning clan, one point for each win, docking the losing clan 6 points for its loses, totalling these for the season, and using that sum as the tie-breaker in case two or more clans have the same net ratings change.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by moonbus
In principle, I am not averse to some sort of hybrid solution. It probably has the best chance of finding broad support among the clans.

Point 3: starting the season at zero for all clans, and tracking the ratings, seems viable. The clan with the highest plus rating change over the season is prima facie the winner. This allows the possibility of negative ...[text shortened]... s the tie-breaker in case two or more clans have the same net ratings change.

Just a thought.

We are not awarding points to players. But rather to clans.

It's a team sport.
By way of example, Europe can win the Ryder Cup (golf) and have players on the team that went winless for the week.

That being said, your suggestion is worth consideration.

Originally posted by mghrn55
We are not awarding points to players. But rather to clans.

It's a team sport.
By way of example, Europe can win the Ryder Cup (golf) and have players on the team that went winless for the week...

In that case, points are awarded merely for bigness, not for winning games. Not a level playing field.

I'm not familiar with golf team rules and conventions. Please enlighten me. Are golf teams all the same size, and do they all play the same number of rounds? It makes a big difference, since clans are all different sizes and play at will, not to a fixed schedule.

Originally posted by padger
I would like it if someone could explain to me how this would work
As far as I can see this would make it ideal for someone to get together with say 2 or 3 other clans and then get 100% in the first couple of months
Then spend the rest of the year counting your blessings waiting for the plaudits to come in

I notice none of the ELO fans ( by the way didn't they do "Mr Blue Skies " ) have debunked this
So I must assume that it is quite a possibility that collusion could take place and therefore not worthy of consideration
It looks like this is what happened last year and caused the problems that we have now
We do not want that again

Originally posted by padger
I notice none of the ELO fans ( by the way didn't they do "Mr Blue Skies " ) have debunked this
So I must assume that it is quite a possibility that collusion could take place and therefore not worthy of consideration
It looks like this is what happened last year and caused the problems that we have now
We do not want that again

What's to debunk? It all depends on whether one sees collusion as the primary cause of what's wrong w/the clan system, or a secondary symptom of what's wrong with it.

PS Let me ask you this. Really, in all honesty, this is not a trick question. If EasyRiders had never existed and if there were no collusion going on, now or ever, would you think the clan system is just fine the way it is, no adjustments needed?

We need a system that doesn't reward clans that find ways to manipulate the system within the rules.
The reasons that few folk understand the rules of golf are because over the years they have added and amended rules each time that they are made aware of a golfers ability to manipulate a situation within the rules.
We don't want rules as complicated as golf but we do need rules to prevent piranha leaders from ruining a clan system for the rest.

1. If the winning clan gets all the points then this leads to throwing the rest of the games once the majority of games are won. This in turn is a form of sandbagging as the ratings of those throwing the games are reduced by the losses.

2. Players that go awol for a length of time return with a rating far lower than their ability thus become sharks in the clan system. A way to have their rating restart at pre awol losses would help.

3. Limiting clan membership to 2 clans can/could help with collusion possibilities.

4. A player that hasn't moved in 15 days (allows 14 day vacation) should automatically be unavailable for challenges.

These are only a few of new measures required.

The clan forum also requires revamping :
1. No tolerance for personal attacks
2. No tolerance for foul language
3. No tolerance for bypassing filters ie $hit
4. No tolerance for unfounded accusations

Again these are only a few of the measures required.

Any clan leader that currently checks into the forums and disagrees with the status quo is set upon en mass by the machine of pro metallica.
They should be allowed to have a point of view and not ganged up on by cyber bullies