different views

thanks to all for the discussion so far

there are some strong personalities, and strong viewpoints

it's time to start putting this together


please remember, if we ask for reform, we're most likely to get results if...

the changes are feasible, and not require a huge effort on the part of the site

once implemented, they do not require excessive work on the part of the administrators

the sense of the changes are apparent and all or most of us must agree on them


here is a edited summary of some of the most complete suggestions


no draws or resignations until move 30 has been made

1. The bulk number of wins is not a fair measure of a clan’s success, as this favours large clans which play many games at short time limits, to the detriment of smaller clans which play fewer games at longer time limits. Quantity should not be the measure of a clan’s performance. A proposal was mooted which based clan performance on net average rating change. This would level the playing field.

2. To prevent collusion, there should be a maximum number of challenges between any two clans involving the same players, and the max. should be low (2 or 3) -- with the proviso that if two or more clans play more than the max., they may do so but the games played above the max would not affect clan standings.

3. To prevent sandbagging, clan individual ratings should be uncoupled from RHP non-clan individual ratings.

4. There should be a maximum ratings differential between clan challenge opponents. A max., of 200 was suggested.

5. An arbitrary number of clan-games would be played with a provisional rating to ascertain a player's true strength, and so long as provisional ratings were in force, a modified formula would be used to calculate the rating rise or drop of opponents of provisionally-rated clan players.


!] any player who has not moved in say 30 days should not be allowed to be entered in clan challenges
2] winner takes it all. any drawn challenge, each team gets zero points
3] have a separate rating for the clan you are in. there is currently a separate rating for clubs, should be easy for clans
4] one clan, each player should only be allowed to play for one clan, that will stop any conflict of interest


1) clan players that have not moved for 30 days automatically become unavailable for challenges

2) clans can not issue challenges until they have at least 2 members

3) clan leaders can't issue a challenge against a clan where the clan leader is also a member of their clan

4) separate rating for clan games

5) clans have an quota of higher and lower rated players to even up, ie clans can have only 10 players over 1400 or 3 players over 1800 etc

6) clan games can't be resigned


1. Within a clan challenge points are accrued as follows..2 points for a win.....1 point for a draw.......0 points for a loss (as it currently is).

2. When clan challenge is complete the clan with the most points wins the challenge and is allocated points as per the current allocation. e.g in a 10 man challenge (20 games) the winning clan (based on the points allocation above) is awarded 20 points. If both teams are equal 10 points each (or if it was a 2 man challenge....2 points each).The losing team however does not get negative points actually gets 1 point for every winning game they had.
For example lets say in a 10 man challenge (20 games) team A wins 10 games team B wins 8 games and 2 games are drawn. Team A gets 20 points and team B gets 8 points. This would make if fairer to both clans who arrange larger challenges but also reward clans that get beaten by a small margin. None of this negative crap. In the above scenario at the present moment there would be a 40 swing which is ridiculous in such a close challenge.

3. Clan ratings are separate from all other ratings. Your clan rating is based upon your performance in clan games only. This should eliminate sandbaggers

4. To make 3 above work members are only allowed to be in 1 clan only (otherwise people could join 2 clans, play badly in one clan sandbagging their rating)

5. There be a panel of 5 chosen impartial clan leaders who can look at complaints and issue warnings if they think it proper. If a clan recieves two warnings then the clan is suspended from accepting challenges for say 2 months e.g proven collusion etc. This panel would have to be long time members who are respected and on the site often.

6. Members of the winning clan at the end of the year recieve a free subscription when their next renewal is due (incentive plus should increase players coming to the site)


1. Make the system an ELO based system rewarding merit instead of skulduggery.
2. Have a rating system specific to clans.
3. Prohibit the resignation/draws of clan games until move thirty
4. A provisional rating would be utilised to ascertain a player's true strength prior to their inclusion
5. Provisional games would not count towards the clans overall ELO
6. A maximum number of challenges between any two clans involving the same players, typically three.
7. A maximum ratings differential between clan challenge opponents of about 100 ELO points.
8. A clan should have a minimum requirement for it to be termed a clan, perhaps four players.
9. Make those who are inactive for more than thirty days ineligible for challenges.


eliminate the rating caps of 200 point spread. allow matches against higher rated players to balance the average, let is be a clan leader decision

set a point limit so no clan can run away with the totals. Maximum challenges, minimum losses (bounce clans from the list for the year if they fall below -100 negative; prevent runaway clans from starting challenges if they are 100 over the second clan

A site referee, or a committee of proven long time leaders of clans should be set up to review clan play and place appropriate bans and cautions


okay, i know that was a lot to read, so if you got this far, congrats 🙂


the suggestion i see in common from several clan leaders is a separate rating system for clan players, uncoupled from their site rating

we can use that for a starting point

would it be useful, and are there any objections to it?


thanks
~leo

I am not quite sure what posts you have been reading
All the problems could quite easily be resolved with my first proposal
The only thing I would change on this would be instead of a year it would be a season
Points should be awarded for games won and not net points which is complete rubbish
Separate ratings ??
Free subscriptions I think not

Originally posted by padger
I am not quite sure what posts you have been reading
All the problems could quite easily be resolved with my first proposal
The only thing I would change on this would be instead of a year it would be a season
Points should be awarded for games won and not net points which is complete rubbish
Separate ratings ??
Free subscriptions I think not

Originally posted by Giannotti
thanks to all for the discussion so far

there are some strong personalities, and strong viewpoints

it's time to start putting this together


please remember, if we ask for reform, we're most likely to get results if...

the changes are feasible, and not require a huge effort on the part of the site

once implemented, they do not require exce ...[text shortened]... or a starting point

would it be useful, and are there any objections to it?


thanks
~leo

Originally posted by radioactive69
That actually is a great start.

However a lot more needs to be done to overhaul the current system.

Carrobie, Vespin and especially McGayo need to be booted for starters.

Originally posted by padger
I am not quite sure what posts you have been reading
All the problems could quite easily be resolved with my first proposal
The only thing I would change on this would be instead of a year it would be a season
Points should be awarded for games won and not net points which is complete rubbish
Separate ratings ??
Free subscriptions I think not

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ummm i dont mean to be rude but i fail to see how your suggestion solves anything, how will it stop sandbagging by way of example?

Originally posted by radioactive69
Yes.....unfortunately I have to agree with you there. Padgers suggestions solves nothing. Clans on the same page doesn't make sense. Some clans on the first page have absolutely no right to be there. If they start that there will only be one page of clans left. The others will leave the site.

Originally posted by radioactive69
Yes.....unfortunately I have to agree with you there. Padgers suggestions solves nothing. Clans on the same page doesn't make sense. Some clans on the first page have absolutely no right to be there. If they start that there will only be one page of clans left. The others will leave the site.

There are 3 different camps that offer views on this thread

1. Metallica views and those of their flunkies
2. Those that have become disaffected with the clan system because of the Metallica abuse of the system
3. Those that are naive to what has been really happening.

Unless your solutions curb the current and past abuse of the system by Metallica then any proposed movement forward is in fact avoiding the real issues and thereby solves nothing.

Originally posted by Mctayto
There are 3 different camps that offer views on this thread

1. Metallica views and those of their flunkies
2. Those that have become disaffected with the clan system because of the Metallica abuse of the system
3. Those that are naive to what has been really happening.

Unless your solutions curb the current and past abuse of the system by Metallica t ...[text shortened]... en any proposed movement forward is in fact avoiding the real issues and thereby solves nothing.

Originally posted by padger
I was under the impression the main problem at the moment was collusion between clans
Playing only the clans on one page would stop that problem at a stroke
I agree with you about awarding all the points for challenges is completely wrong
I tried to get that sorted out some time ago but was voted down
The problem with sand bagging is a constant one tha ...[text shortened]... ents
The only way to solve that is to make it easier to go up in rating than it is to come down

Originally posted by Mctayto
There are 3 different camps that offer views on this thread

1. Metallica views and those of their flunkies
2. Those that have become disaffected with the clan system because of the Metallica abuse of the system
3. Those that are naive to what has been really happening.

Unless your solutions curb the current and past abuse of the system by Metallica t ...[text shortened]... en any proposed movement forward is in fact avoiding the real issues and thereby solves nothing.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
What a jackass you are. Too bad you don't have a brain, or a set of balls.

If you had a brain you would realize how stupid your argument is.
If you had a set of balls you would play the game like a man instead of like the cheat that you are.
YOU are the biggest problem at RHP.....period.

I would really love to meet up with you and convert your skirt into a gag for that big mouth of yours.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow and there you have it folks, the leader of Metalica, his solution?? bad mouth anyone who calls out his skulduggery. Well that was predictable