Clan System Request for Proposals

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A rating system based on clan performance linked to individual clan members ELO should be implemented. This will negate sandbagging, throwing of clan games, dumping of clan challenges.

Yes and put you in the driving seat
If ELO is implemented i will be gone

Originally posted by Giannotti
it came (as was said) from the previous two clan forums for clan reform

i compiled what was presented, there are many i don't agree with

please add your suggestions to the list so we can vote

So it doesn't come from what has been discussed on this forum ?
I think the best way forward is to scrap Clans altogether
Then Robbie can get together with his chums form a club and be happy ever after

Originally posted by Giannotti
it came (as was said) from the previous two clan forums for clan reform

i compiled what was presented, there are many i don't agree with

please add your suggestions to the list so we can vote

Some are valid and some are not.

Ironically you re posted Russ initial request re keeping your suggestions to a one liner and then went on to post one of the largest posts in this thread 😉

Originally posted by padger
Yes and put you in the driving seat
If ELO is implemented i will be gone

Hold on whilst a lone tear is shed

Originally posted by Giannotti
it came (as was said) from the previous two clan forums for clan reform

i compiled what was presented, there are many i don't agree with

please add your suggestions to the list so we can vote

So it came from a forum that any sensible person would not visit because of all the trash that gets thrown about
That's not using your loaf

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A rating system based on clan performance linked to individual clan members ELO should be implemented. This will negate sandbagging, throwing of clan games, dumping of clan challenges.

The site's in-house rating formula is virtually identical to the ELO system.
That can be used as well.
But both work.

Question is why spend extra resources.
Russ has to write the cheque after all.

I agree with the following:
clan individual ratings should be uncoupled from RHP non-clan individual ratings,

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)

set a maximum number of challenges between clans involving the same players (currently this is 3) [would prefer five]

I am not in favor of the following:
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 [we have enough information on the site to determine a player's true strength so why bother? just creates delays]

hide the results of a clan challenges until the match is complete [I believe it can be calculated anyway so why hide it]

no draws or resignations will be permitted until 30 moves have been made (or, permit no clan games to be resigned) [I think this is way too many moves. If I lose a queen and a rook in the first 10-15 moves, why would I waste my time playing? 15 or maybe 20 I might be willing to do]

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) [don't agree with this as I belong to several clans and I've been clear with the clan leaders that I either won't compete against my other clans or that one clan is my number one clan. If it makes the clan system better, I could agree with this but not sure how it helps]

clans should have a minimum requirement of X players, and are not permitted to issue challenge unless the requirement is met [I have no problems with small clans. I'm sure they understand that small clans have a disadvantage against larger ones for the annual competition.]

set a point limit, so no clan can run away with the totals [why? if a clan is winning a lot, then let them. that's what competition is. It's like all other sports. One team does well and the others try to improve to catch them the next year.]

ELO is proposed as a respected and useful rating system [I'm not a fan. Would prefer the point for each game and then an amount for the overall match. If you want to tie it to the number of participants, then one point for each game and a match total equal to number of games divided by two. So, that a 5x5 match would have one point for each game and 2,5 points for the match.]

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) [would prefer my proposal above. I agree that the winner take all rule hurts the clan structure if you want to compete. If you've already lost the match as a clan, you have more incentive to "throw" the remaining games that gain you nothing as a clan.]

a site referee, or a committee of proven clan leaders, should be set up to review clan play and place appropriate bans and cautions [I don't believe a committee structure can happen without significant fighting and disagreement. A site referee maybe if all agree in advance but even then I doubt it lasts past the first controversy. - Look at this thread and forum, we can't put aside the collusion/not collusion arguments to even discuss improvements.in the system.]

prevent clans from starting challenges if they are rated X over the challenged clan [if you put in the control of the individual match ups have to be within x number of points, then why do you need this? who cares if the number one clan challenges the number 100 clan if they both agree to it?] {I realize this item might refer to the ELO discussion.}

score clan performance on net average rating change, this will give smaller clans, or slower clans, a measure of equality [not sure why we would do this. I'm not sure the smaller clans are complaining about this issue. I believe most of the complaining we see are around the charges of collusion and the folks who are mad that others took advantage of the rules]

Originally posted by mghrn55
The site's in-house rating formula is virtually identical to the ELO system.
That can be used as well.
But both work.

Question is why spend extra resources.
Russ has to write the cheque after all.

Because this would ensure that only matches in the clan system would count. Any one lowering their score in tournaments or other matches would not have that as part of their score. Assumption is that people reduce their scores intentionally to get better match ups in the clan system.

Originally posted by lstcyr
Because this would ensure that only matches in the clan system would count. Any one lowering their score in tournaments or other matches would not have that as part of their score. Assumption is that people reduce their scores intentionally to get better match ups in the clan system.

You missed my point.
My question was ....
Why switch to ELO rating system when we already have a formula ?

I fully support decouple of clan rating from tournament rating.

Originally posted by mghrn55
You missed my point.
My question was ....
Why switch to ELO rating system when we already have a formula ?

I fully support decouple of clan rating from tournament rating.

I still think my original proposal sorts out most problems
It appears there are 4 things that are to be considered
1 Collusion
2 Sandbagging
3 Dead players
4 Points awarded for a win

1 The way around collusion would be that a clan cannot challenge the same clan in a 90 day period

2 The way to stop sandbagging would be the player who resigns there would be no rating change
I would like to see that one back dated to the 1st of January

3 The way to stop dead players would be to able participate in a challenge player must have moved in the last 14 days

4 Points should be awarded on the size of the challenge
So that a 10 man challenge would be 10 points for the win and 1 point for everygame won
If challenge finishes 11 - 9 winning clan would get 10 + 11 = 21 points losing clan 9
If a 5 man challenge ended 6 - 4 winning clan would get 5 + 6 = 11 points losing clan 4
Draws would be just games won

Originally posted by Giannotti
it came (as was said) from the previous two clan forums for clan reform

i compiled what was presented, there are many i don't agree with

please add your suggestions to the list so we can vote

Removal of collusion points from 2016'and warnings issued that's my proposal

Originally posted by padger
I still think my original proposal sorts out most problems
It appears there are 4 things that are to be considered
1 Collusion
2 Sandbagging
3 Dead players
4 Points awarded for a win

1 The way around collusion would be that a clan cannot challenge the same clan in a 90 day period

2 The way to stop sandbagging would be the player who resigns t ...[text shortened]... ded 6 - 4 winning clan would get 5 + 6 = 11 points losing clan 4
Draws would be just games won

Finally, some good suggestions. I like everything you have proposed plus having a clan only rating.🙂

Originally posted by mghrn55
The site's in-house rating formula is virtually identical to the ELO system.
That can be used as well.
But both work.

Question is why spend extra resources.
Russ has to write the cheque after all.

yes I am all for it. I expect your rating to rise from 1700 to 1900