The series of consultation votes last month illustrated how closely opinion was divided on some of the proposed changes to the clan tables, so we are not expecting everyone to warm to the updates.
What we do have now is a table focusing on annual position using net points as the default table view, rather than the gross wins from the start of time we had before.
The other significant change is that games must be played beyond move 8 if a draw is to result in any points being allocated.
Originally posted by RussSome good changes but the draw option is still flawed as all people will do is make the necessary 8 moves to get the necessary points
The series of consultation votes last month illustrated how closely opinion was divided on some of the proposed changes to the clan tables, so we are not expecting everyone to warm to the updates.
What we do have now is a table focusing on annual position using net points as the default table view, rather than the gross wins from the start of time we had b ...[text shortened]... is that games must be played beyond move 8 if a draw is to result in any points being allocated.
It is good to see the changes. One nice thing about computers, of which I know nothing but pushing the buttons and mouse, is that a different table or prefernce can always be tried to see what is the best.
I like the 8 move rule too, but I think that there's still some room for improvements.
1. the 8 move rule should be allowed for appeal. it would only be appealed by a clan and member with integrity, as any abuse would show up on the appeal anyway.
2. ridiculous abuses of the system should not be allowed, just as other abuses aren't allowed. if a clan (not to mention any names) has a record with a huge number of 8 move 2 minute draws and a huge number of mismatches against some obviously dummy pretend clan, then the clan leader and the clan should be disciplined through forfeitures and bans from clan play.
it may be hard to prove in some cases, but that wouldn't be the point. once the abuse becomes obvious, then the action can be taken. it's just the same as engine users and other abuses right? (maybe not, but it seems like it to me)
It's a sad day for Devoted to Dogs, who have always tried to play fair challenges but who, due to this change, are down to page 19 out of 21. 🙁
Even more sad, is that the clans who have cheated their way to a good net figure benefit from the change. 🙁
I know you have tried to improve things Russ, but at the end of the day the cheats have won. 🙁
Time to move on methinks.
Originally posted by GoggyI have to agree.
It's a sad day for Devoted to Dogs, who have always tried to play fair challenges but who, due to this change, are down to page 19 out of 21. 🙁
Even more sad, is that the clans who have cheated their way to a good net figure benefit from the change. 🙁
I know you have tried to improve things Russ, but at the end of the day the cheats have won. 🙁
Time to move on methinks.
The changes are welcomed in one breath but they still hand out positions based on how unscrupulous the leaders have been.
My personal view is that come January (my renewal date) I for one have no intention of continuing my membership.
For years I have played in clans and managed clans and am sickened that the Metallicas and Amsterdams are rewarded for lopsided challenges.
Originally posted by MctaytoWhat would you suggest to sort it out?
I have to agree.
The changes are welcomed in one breath but they still hand out positions based on how unscrupulous the leaders have been.
My personal view is that come January (my renewal date) I for one have no intention of continuing my membership.
For years I have played in clans and managed clans and am sickened that the Metallicas and Amsterdams are rewarded for lopsided challenges.