Two of four:
Explicit definitions and rules, what is allowed and what not. 2a. Allowed: consulting books, journals, Internet data bases, any published game. 2b. Not allowed: consulting other players, endgame tables, engines, discussing running games at forums or via PM, dead players, sandbagging, collusion, (with clear definitions of terms), or willful attempt to artificially manipulate clan standings by any means other than playing good chess as set out in item 2a above within the framework set out in item 3 below.
Three of four:
Establishment of a written framework for the conduct of clan play, including but not necessarily limited to the following items: minimum clan size (5?), minimum number of clan games / challenges to be completed in a season (?), maximum number of same-clan-same-player challenges (2), maximum rating differential for pairings (200), separation of clan ratings from all other ratings, ratings to be tracked, replacement of the appellation "best clan" by multiple appellations including but not necessarily limited to "clan with most bulk wins," "clan with highest win ratio," "clan with most improved ELO rating."
Four of four:
Establishment of an adjudication committee (size and composition to be determined, members to be made known to clan captains), with competence to: a) receive complaints and allegations of suspicious activity, which complaints or allegations are to be submitted by clan captains only (to avoid spurious complaints); b) investigate, verify, and respond to said complaints speedily and impartially; c) make recommendations to site admin regarding disciplinary measures in case of serious and/or repeated infractions; d) amend points 1, 2, or 3 above as needed; e) render a one-time only, speedy, impartial, and final determination regarding clan standings for 2016. (PS I dis-nominate myself for membership on said committee.)
Originally posted by moonbusNice work Moonbus.
Four of four:
Establishment of an [b]adjudication committee (size and composition to be determined, members to be made known to clan captains), with competence to: a) receive complaints and allegations of suspicious activity, which complaints or allegations are to be submitted by clan captains only (to avoid spurious complaints); b) investigate, verify, ...[text shortened]... regarding clan standings for 2016. (PS I dis-nominate myself for membership on said committee.)[/b]
Your efforts are appreciated.
I expect Russ will go over the entire thread and gather anything that isn't covered in your summary.
Originally posted by moonbusI would still like the points awarded for a win sorted out
I favor the following four points (separated in four posts so people can give thumbs up or down to each point individually):
1. A clear statement of [b]principle, what is expected in terms of sportsmanship: "every player plays his own moves to the best of his ability" (or something like that).[/b]
The current system is daft
As I have pointed out before you should not lose points that you have already won
Originally posted by moonbus1. Unless there is a change to an ELO based system all the other grievances and abuses of the system will persist. There is no point on discussing anything else until this is finalised.
Three of four:
Establishment of a written [b]framework for the conduct of clan play, including but not necessarily limited to the following items: minimum clan size (5?), minimum number of clan games / challenges to be completed in a season (?), maximum number of same-clan-same-player challenges (2), maximum rating differential for pairings (200), separ ...[text shortened]... "clan with most bulk wins," "clan with highest win ratio," "clan with most improved ELO rating."[/b]
2. Clan size is not an abuse of the system, sandbagging, end of year dumping of challenges, prematurely resigning games when a challenge is numerically won are.
3. The maximum number of games a clan can play with another has already been addressed.
4. Unhitching clan rating from other ratings has not been addressed, this needs to be finalised.
I would have thought that all Russ needs to do is update the Clan Help pages
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/help/index.php?help=clans
with something to the effect that all clan members are expected to play their games with honest intent for the good of their own clan - which would give him the power to sanction any clan who played kingmaker with or without the "collusion" of the beneficiary clan. If he does not have time to referee any potential complaint he could appoint some sort of arbiter who could go in and score suspect challenges 0 - 0. That would still leave the majority of the clan challenge system in the hands of the leaders to administer.
While he is at it he could make clear whether he accepts resigning of clan games after a challenge is decided as acceptable and if not alter the net points scoring system to being the difference between the winning and losing score.
If there is evidence that some players are playing their clan games to a different standard than on other parts of the site - maybe by spending 2 minutes on their clan moves rather than 30 seconds - then perhaps introducing a clan rating makes sense.