On games resigned early if a challenge has been decided

@moonbus said
That's a long-winded way of saying that you, like your predecessor, believe that throwing games is acceptable.

I would like to hear what some other players think about that.

Not necessarily ......
And I am speaking for myself here.
I have stated where I stand here.
First of all I will lay out the basis of the accusations against our clan.
That is that we resign games in decided challenges (won or lost) in order manipulate our ratings, otherwise called sandbagging.
While I have already explained how pointless that argument is within clan games only, I will still state how I stand.

If in a decided challenge ....
I am losing a game, I will consider resigning it. What I am considering here is how fast the game is moving along. Not rating manipulation. I am losing anyways.

If a game is even or drawish, I will offer a draw.

I have not resigned a clan game I am winning. A caveat - if it is Dec 31 and our clan needs the points to win the year, the decision will be a no brainer.

That being said, the primary objective in clan play is winning the challenges and cashing in the points.
And ending up at the top of the table at the end of every year.
Clan play is team play first and individual play second.
Perhaps that is blunt.

Our methods are aggressive.
But let's face it, the discussion is centered on how to deal with those whose methods cross the line.

@caesar-salad said
But it seems there is only one clan feeling hindered by that limit.

Why would any clan need more than three concurrent challenges against another given clan?

Your arguments often seem reasonable, but of course I'm aware that anything you defend or propose is something that you find benefits or would be favorable to your clan [perhaps a third aspect of being a clan ...[text shortened]... n to clarify that by "played to completion" he did not intend to include early terminations, eh? ;-)

Wrong. That limit applies to every clan.
And there is nothing wrong with having more than 3 challenges against one clan.
But that freedom was abused in 2016 by several colluding clans to manufacture points for one clan.
Our clan has lived with that limitation and still thrived in the standings.
What has suffered here is the clan feature itself.
Several years ago, clans could score upwards of 1500 points because there were more challenges.
Too bad for the clan feature because a few characters abused the goodwill nature of clan play.

@mghrn55 said
Wrong. That limit applies to every clan.

What a remarkably dodgy response. Yes, of course the limit applies to all clans, but apparently only one clan feels hindered by it.

Further, for one of the leading clans to have the greatest say regarding the rules seems an awful lot like major banks and corporations writing federal regulations that would apply to them.

@caesar-salad said
What a remarkably dodgy response. Yes, of course the limit applies to all clans, but apparently only one clan feels hindered by it.

Further, for one of the leading clans to have the greatest say regarding the rules seems an awful lot like major banks and corporations writing federal regulations that would apply to them.

We haven't felt hindered by it.
We felt that every clan has been hindered by it.
Now if some clans feel they are happy playing only a few challenges every year, that's fine.
Our clan plays quite a bit.
There are clans that play more than we do.
They can share their thoughts if they wish.

Just an observation....
When I first joined our clan 9 years ago, we won the year with over 3000 points.
2nd place had 2800 points.
Last year, winning clan got <900 points.
Clan feature has suffered.
Pace of challenge scoring has slowed down.
Conversation about resigning games in decided challenges is the wrong narrative if we are trying to rejuvenate this feature.
And this discussion has come up for the wrong reason, to satisfy a few individuals who are obsessed with some perception of sandbagging.

@mghrn55 said
First of all I will lay out the basis of the accusations against our clan.

Given your misapprehension of what I wrote about "only one clan feeling hindered by the limit" (whether inadvertent or blatantly deliberate), I'm sure it would be better to hear that basis directly from the accusers, rather than some potentially self-serving paraphrase that you might offer on behalf of your clan.

However, I did appreciate the rest of what you wrote in that post, and gave it a like.

@caesar-salad said
Given your misapprehension of what I wrote about "only one clan feeling hindered by the limit" (whether inadvertent or blatantly deliberate), I'm sure it would be better to hear that basis directly from the accusers, rather than some potentially self-serving paraphrase that you might offer on behalf of your clan.

However, I did appreciate the rest of what you wrote in that post, and gave it a like.

Thank you.

@mghrn55 said
We haven't felt hindered by it.
We felt that every clan has been hindered by it.
Now if some clans feel they are happy playing only a few challenges every year, that's fine.
Our clan plays quite a bit.
There are clans that play more than we do.
They can share their thoughts if they wish.

Just an observation....
When I first joined our clan 9 years ago, we won the yea ...[text shortened]... the wrong reason, to satisfy a few individuals who are obsessed with some perception of sandbagging.

If you haven't felt hindered by it, then why do you oppose it?

If other clans do oppose that limit, why don't you let them speak for themselves instead of you opposing the limit on their behalf, based on your imaginings of how they feel?

Your own attempt at shaping the narrative has been noted.

@caesar-salad said
If you haven't felt hindered by it, then why do you oppose it?

If other clans do oppose that limit, why don't you let them speak for themselves instead of you opposing the limit on their behalf, based on your imaginings of how they feel?

Your own attempt at shaping the narrative has been noted.

Those are your words.
I haven't voiced opposition to this particular rule.
Or any new rule.
What our clan has done is adapt to it.
Your are trying to frame a narrative around some perceived impropriety by some clans that adapt.
I know what you are trying to do.
The real discussion is about certain individuals trying to make resigning clan games the primary issue in the clan forum.

It is NOT !!

The discussion has been and will continue to be the improprieties being conducted by a certain individual using tournament games to misrepresent his rating for clan games.

As far as I am concerned, the issue of resigning clan games is a minor issue at most.
And a non issue at least.

I've presented a logical assessment of my opinion on decided clan challenges and any outstanding games in those challenges.
If you want to keep throwing fuel into this phantom issue, by all means, knock yourself out.
I've played along in this thread long enough.
It's all yours !!

@mghrn55 said
The real discussion is about certain individuals trying to make resigning clan games the primary issue in the clan forum.

It is NOT !!

I gather that is your preferred point-of-view that you wish to promote.

Hahah re: "the real discussion" -- that's a good one.

But since your clan, and the usual suspects your opponents, both seem to be campaigning for greater fairness in clan play, why don't the two sides declare a truce, show a willingness to compromise, acknowledge that both sides might see things differently regarding the fundamental problem(s), and come to some agreement?

@mghrn55 said
I haven't voiced opposition to this particular rule.

Haven't you?

@mghrn55 said
Not necessarily ......
And I am speaking for myself here.
I have stated where I stand here.
First of all I will lay out the basis of the accusations against our clan.
That is that we resign games in decided challenges (won or lost) in order manipulate our ratings, otherwise called sandbagging.
While I have already explained how pointless that argument is within clan game ...[text shortened]... ut let's face it, the discussion is centered on how to deal with those whose methods cross the line.

You want blunt? I'll be blunt, too. What Metallica does and what McTayto does differ only in degree, not in kind.

Your rationale for tossing games (i.e., ostensibly not for the purpose of manipulating ratings, but rather ...) is subterfuge. The effect is the same. If the captain of Clan X arranges pairings with Metallica or McTayto and takes a beating, it is the fault of the Clan X captain for not doing his homework, according to you. The only difference is that what McTayto concentrates on one player, you spread out over the whole clan.

It is evident that this discussion will not persuade you to adopt the position that every game counts, to ensure a level playing field for the clan system as a whole. The most we can hope to achieve is to determine more clearly where 'the line' is and which clans cross it.

@moonbus said
Have a look at

No.

@d4v said
No.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

@moonbus said
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

You play with the misfits who don't play a lot of games. For Clans to be limited to playing only 3 challenges with one Clan actually benefits a Clan like yours. I do believe I have more skulls collected than the amount of games your Clan has played in total games. You yourself play very few games, so the least amount of challenges a Clan is allowed to play is right where where you would like things to be. I don't believe your Clan the "Misfits" have double digit points yet.

Perhaps there should be a division made of teams like ours and others that like to play a lot of games/Challenges and Clans like your own would prefer to play fewer Challenges/games. You are in a Clan that I had expected with the players you have to be in the top 5!!! Yet there you sit on the 2nd page not even at double digits yet for points.

There are a number of Clans who actually play more games than we do. All you have to do is take a close look at the standings and you will see. Playing a lot of challenges is good for Clans who enjoy playing many games, not so good for Clans who don't play many games/Challenges.

That pretty much sums it up. Clans who don't play many Challenges don't want to see other Clans who like to play a lot of Challenges play them, calling it an advantage. I agree it is a disadvantage for those who aren't going to put the effort required to play in more Challenges.

A possible solution is to have two divisions 'A' who prefer a lot of challenges. 'B' Clans who prefer to play less Challenges. I think this idea was put forward back a number of years ago, which I thought would help solve a lot of arguments about how the Clan Challenges work. Perhaps it would keep everyone a little more happy? Solutions are better than an argument that goes on for years with no results in the end.

-VR

@moonbus said
You want blunt? I'll be blunt, too. What Metallica does and what McTayto does differ only in degree, not in kind.

Your rationale for tossing games (i.e., ostensibly not for the purpose of manipulating ratings, but rather ...) is subterfuge. The effect is the same. If the captain of Clan X arranges pairings with Metallica or McTayto and takes a beating, it is ...[text shortened]... st we can hope to achieve is to determine more clearly where 'the line' is and which clans cross it.

I find that your attempt at comparison of what Metallica is being accused of doing to what Mctayto has been proven to be doing somewhat disappointing.
We have been pretty much on the same page when it came to brainstorming for ideas to make the clan feature better.

But it has been my position that much of the discussion about how to improve the feature was started by the whining of a few malcontents.
But the actual work done by Russ to fix the clan feature was the end result of the actual cheating of those malcontents who were caught red handed in 2016.

I've always considered your posts to reasonable and thoughtful even if we didn't always agree on everything.
We were generally on the same page in a lot of aspects.

But it seems that you too have been influenced by the incessant whining of the few malcontents who have had an unhealthy, envy filled obsession with Metallica for as long as I have been a member of this clan.
And it has turned out, it has been these very malcontents that have been exposed as the cheats once again.

I will say it once and again. We do not use clan games to manipulate our ratings.
We cash in the points as expeditiously as possible. And we don't toss games as a rule.
That you have come up with an example is an exception, not the rule.

I can say with absolute certainty that our clan currently has decided won challenges still in progress worth in excess of 100 points that we could cash in today if you want us to do what we are being accused of.

And the irony of this is that we wouldn't even cut our deficit to Lemondrop's clan in half.
While he continues to pile easy opponents onto Mctayto's plate !!
If you want to contemplate what is going on in the clan community at present, then try to explain how Mctayto continues to win 3 times as many clan games as he loses and yet keeps his rating at 1100.

Making a comparison between our clan and this character is a laughable joke !!

It should be noted that lemondrop has boosted his roster to 6 players (most of them from the former Easy Riders clan) in anticipation of Russ boosting clan size requirements.
But going through his challenges, I am hard pressed to find any matchups assigned to the new members (probably less than 10).
Yet he continues to pile the games on a cheat who just returned from a ban.

There will be more links to Mctayto's tossed tournament games coming in the next few days.
It is time to reset the narrative back in the proper direction.
That being the need for a separate rating for clan games.
My concern is that Russ is probably reading this correspondence and he may just end up walking away from any solution.
And that will be unfortunate.