1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst, I 100% agree with Crowley's point.
First, I 100% agree with Crowley's point.
Second, what part of people want to finish their games but not take on new ones didn't you understand?
I don't care about this rotation non-issue; it's primarily a crybaby complaint from one user with an axe to grind against his old clan and the usual drivel from IVV. Why should this sit to play chess; the last thing the site needs is MORE games resigned for non-chess reasons.
Excellent! Given that, there should be no problem with insisting that a player remain a member of a clan if he intends to finish out his clan games for that clan. The "I don't care about total points" argument is double-edged. Maybe a clan leader only cares about winning matches against his top rivals. Great. Said player can remain a member and help his team accomplish this. For a time, the team will only have 19 players available to start new matches. So what? Most of the matches don't involve nearly that many boards in the first place.
Second, what part of people want to finish their games but not take on new ones didn't you understand?
I understand it perfectly. Under my proposal, they are allowed to do so, as long as they do not leave their clan.
I don't care about this rotation non-issue; it's primarily a crybaby complaint from one user with an axe to grind against his old clan and the usual drivel from IVV.
I'm not taking sides in the IVV vs. Metallica issue. In fact, I'm sure if I researched, I could show that both of those clans are circumventing the 20-player limit. I can also point to threads like Thread 92722 that show that there are more clans doing this than just the two aforementioned.
That's not the point. The point is that the 20-player limit is a joke if people are allowed to retain their clan games after they leave the clan. Why not just admit it, and make clans just like clubs, and let unlimited numbers of players join? Then, I could accept letting players score points for their clan even after they left. That would at least be a logically consistent set of rules.
If I decide to leave a clan, I don't want my games resigned and my opponents shouldn't want them resigned either as they are deprived of the games they are paying to play.
I don't know how much clearer I can make this. The idea of my proposal is to encourage people to stay in the clan until their clan games are finished. What is so bad about this? Why would this hurt the clan much, if at all, especially given that we allegedly don't care about clan points?
Your proposal is counterproductive to the primary purpose of the site which is to play chess; the last thing the site needs is MORE games resigned for non-chess reasons.
If the primary purpose of the site was merely to play chess, people wouldn't bother with joining clans at all, would they? None of this would be an issue.
In fact, I can easily modify the proposal to protect the individual player. Let's allow them to finish their clan games no matter what. If they stay in the clan and finish them, things continue as normal. If they leave the clan, the clan takes a "0" for those games, but they continue as individual rated games. This protects your 'primary purpose' of the site.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitShockingly enough, all of the off-topic garbage has been left here. After I post a refutation of your arguments, more will be allowed apparently. The forum posting guidelines are a joke if not enforced against everybody and regardless of who they are directed at.
[b]First, I 100% agree with Crowley's point.
Excellent! Given that, there should be no problem with insisting that a player remain a member of a clan if he intends to finish out his clan games for that clan. The "I don't care about total points" argument is double-edged. Maybe a clan leader only cares about winning matches against his top rivals. s individual rated games. This protects your 'primary purpose' of the site.[/b]
You haven't and cannot address the main argument: that your sudden rule would restrict players from moving from clan to clan in an arbitrary manner. People join clans to make it easier to play more games (they don't have to do the same number of open invites), not because they are sooooooooooooooooo obsessed about clan points. It is bizarre to still hear people bitching and complaining about something that effects ONLY a scoring system that most players know is utterly worthless.
- Joined
- 09 Nov 06
- Moves
- 0
Originally posted by no1marauderRelax, there isn't always a mod 'on duty'.
Shockingly enough, all of the off-topic garbage has been left here. After I post a refutation of your arguments, more will be allowed apparently. The forum posting guidelines are a joke if not enforced against everybody and regardless of who they are directed at.
This is a general warning:
Please try to stay on topic, the place for pointless arguments is in the General and Clans forums.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI agree with SwissGambit 100% with all his statements concerning the topic. Well Said SwissGambit !!!
[b]First, I 100% agree with Crowley's point.
Excellent! Given that, there should be no problem with insisting that a player remain a member of a clan if he intends to finish out his clan games for that clan. The "I don't care about total points" argument is double-edged. Maybe a clan leader only cares about winning matches against his top rivals. ...[text shortened]... s individual rated games. This protects your 'primary purpose' of the site.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderYou obviously did not read, or did not comprehend, my last post.
You haven't and cannot address the main argument: that your sudden rule would restrict players from moving from clan to clan in an arbitrary manner. People join clans to make it easier to play more games (they don't have to do the same number of open invites), not because they are sooooooooooooooooo obsessed about clan points. It is bizarre to still hear ...[text shortened]... bout something that effects ONLY a scoring system that most players know is utterly worthless.
You haven't and cannot address the main argument: that your sudden rule would restrict players from moving from clan to clan in an arbitrary manner.
The proposal has already been modified to have ZERO impact on the individual player that leaves a clan, yet finishes clan games for that clan.
People join clans to make it easier to play more games (they don't have to do the same number of open invites)
Oh, so the point of clans is to make the clan leader arrange all your games for you? And they make sure you get only 'fair challenges' against players of roughly your own strength, right? In that case, let's set up a robot that automatically pairs you in several games against players of roughly your own strength. You can tell the robot what kind of time controls you want to play, how large a gameload you want to have, etc. Problem solved. Who needs clans?
It is bizarre to still hear people bitching and complaining about something that effects ONLY a scoring system
Not true. Again, as I stated earlier, it's conceivable that a clan leader cares only about winning clan matches against certain hated rivals. Maybe he is like you and Crowley and doesn't care about total clan points. He could use the rotation idea to give himself two separate teams, and spread the gameload equally across both teams, thus giving each individual member a lower gameload. A reduced gameload usually means higher play quality.
Originally posted by SwissGambitClan leaders who push the rules to the limit should be rewarded, especially if they are capable of constantly having more than 20 players willing to play games for them. I prefer if it stays as it is rather than limiting the freedoms of players on this pay to play site.
Currently, a player can leave a clan, yet still play out their remaining in-progress clan games. This allows clan leaders to circumvent the 20-member limit by rotating players in and out of the clan.
The fix to the problem is obvious: When you leave a clan, you automatically forfeit all remaining clan games.
So long as this rule can be bent by all clan leaders, I really don't see the problem.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakI agree that if the site will not change the rules, then clan leaders should take full advantage of rotation.
Clan leaders who push the rules to the limit should be rewarded, especially if they are capable of constantly having more than 20 players willing to play games for them. I prefer if it stays as it is rather than limiting the freedoms of players on this pay to play site.
So long as this rule can be bent by all clan leaders, I really don't see the problem.
D
The original proposal has been modified.
If a player leaves a clan, he may finish out his clan games, but the clan takes a "zero" for those games.The purpose of my proposal has always been to prevent clan leaders from circumventing the 20-player limit. I have no wish to punish the individual player.
Originally posted by SwissGambitPeople who play for clans agree to play their games for their and the clan's benefit. If someone decides for (whatever reason) to leave a clan, I see no logical reason for their games not to count for the clan. That's what they signed up for.
You obviously did not read, or did not comprehend, my last post.
[b]You haven't and cannot address the main argument: that your sudden rule would restrict players from moving from clan to clan in an arbitrary manner.
The proposal has already been modified to have ZERO impact on the individual player that leaves a clan, yet finishes clan games f ...[text shortened]... individual member a lower gameload. A reduced gameload usually means higher play quality.[/b]
Your second point is ridiculous and I see no reason to respond to it.
Your far-fetched hypotheticals aside, you've given no good reason to change the rules that have existed here since the inception of the clan system. The proposed change would only restrict player freedom to the detriment of the customers here.
Originally posted by no1marauderShrug. Posts like this are a sure sign that you don't really have any good arguments for your position [tired appeals to tradition do not count].
People who play for clans agree to play their games for their and the clan's benefit. If someone decides for (whatever reason) to leave a clan, I see no logical reason for their games not to count for the clan. That's what they signed up for.
Your second point is ridiculous and I see no reason to respond to it.
Your far-fetc ...[text shortened]... he proposed change would only restrict player freedom to the detriment of the customers here.
I think a change is needed; there is a risk of some clans having the opportunity to cheat the system.
However, here's a simple idea.
Why not say that if you leave the clan, you can't rejoin for (say) a year.
It would mean that anyone who is bored of being in a clan but doesn't want to resign the games, doesn't have to resign all the games. It also means that people couldn't rejoin the clan, so preventing rotation.
Any thoughts?
Originally posted by the one00That idea does nothing to stop clans who load up 20 players with games, then bring in new members [who have never played for that clan] to 'replace' them.
I think a change is needed; there is a risk of some clans having the opportunity to cheat the system.
However, here's a simple idea.
Why not say that if you leave the clan, you can't rejoin for (say) a year.
It would mean that anyone who is bored of being in a clan but doesn't want to resign the games, doesn't have to resign all the games. ...[text shortened]... t also means that people couldn't rejoin the clan, so preventing rotation.
Any thoughts?
In other words, rotation can still occur without the 'old' clan members rejoining.