10 Feb 16
Originally posted by Paul LeggettGood reason to have the clan forum back.
I definitely appreciate where you are coming from- it's part of what prompted me to post your proposal as a thread in the clans forum.
Suzianne pointed out that the two proposals are not mutually exclusive, so perhaps we can have a multi-pronged approach to reform.
Constructive ideas being generated here.
Keep up the good work, guys and gals.
10 Feb 16
Originally posted by Paul LeggettTo use Suzianne's idea you would have to start from scratch where everybody had a 1200
I definitely appreciate where you are coming from- it's part of what prompted me to post your proposal as a thread in the clans forum.
Suzianne pointed out that the two proposals are not mutually exclusive, so perhaps we can have a multi-pronged approach to reform.
rating
How about using the 5 year average as a starting point ,
This would be the Clan Challenge Rating
I still think that challenges should be no further apart than 100 points
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 326101
10 Feb 16
Originally posted by padgerThe only thing is that a player's own genuine rating may go up or down by more than a hundred points. If you look at individual graph lines in a player's profile you'll see this sometimes.
To use Suzianne's idea you would have to start from scratch where everybody had a 1200
rating
How about using the 5 year average as a starting point ,
This would be the Clan Challenge Rating
I still think that challenges should be no further apart than 100 points
Some players' graphs are steady, maybe a gentle rise or a gentle slope downwards. Others' graph lines resemble a rocky mountain range with peaks and troughs. Mine is like that. It varies a lot, and the range is considerably more than a hundred points.
I never cheat. I always try very hard to win. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I agree though that vast manipulated differences, as in those notorious challenges between Strategic Ultimatum and Universitt of Chess For Fun should be totally outlawed. Oh, and whoever said that all clan members in such a case must be colluding, no, that's not the case. In that instance many SU members, like myself, were just playing for fun and never looked at clan standings as such. Once it was pointed out, yes, then some were culpable, but not necessarily so before that.
I don't think you could make a hard and fast rule that challenges should have a difference of no more than a hundred points. I love it when I can unexpectedly beat a much higher ranked player, and I have to grit my teeth and bear it when a much lower ranked player makes mincemeat of me!
Part of the joy of chess!
10 Feb 16
Originally posted by StartreaderI don't think that over 5 years the rating will change that much
The only thing is that a player's own genuine rating may go up or down by more than a hundred points. If you look at individual graph lines in a player's profile you'll see this sometimes.
Some players' graphs are steady, maybe a gentle rise or a gentle slope downwards. Others' graph lines resemble a rocky mountain range with peaks and troughs. Mine ...[text shortened]... and bear it when a much lower ranked player makes mincemeat of me!
Part of the joy of chess!
Their current rating might but not over 5 years
10 Feb 16
Originally posted by StartreaderNo, I don't think anyone is blaming the players. Many of them pass their days in relative ignorance of what their clan leaders are up to. Look at the poor stiffs in the Easy Riders clan. They must be believing Robbie's nonsense, since he's apparently delivered on his promise to be #1. Most of them are probably blind to the deals he's made with his 'feeder' clans, some of them may not be, and others probably don't want to look too closely because they may find the Emperor indeed has no clothes.
Oh, and whoever said that all clan members in such a case must be colluding, no, that's not the case. In that instance many SU members, like myself, were just playing for fun and never looked at clan standings as such. Once it was pointed out, yes, then some were culpable, but not necessarily so before that.
It's the clan leaders I'd ban, for they are obviously colluding to further Robbie's pathetic dream of finally being "a winner" at something. The players not so much, even though, yes, some of these players have got to have some idea of what's going on. But they're just the foot soldiers. The clan leaders are the ones calling the shots and trying to bring down the clan system by making a mockery of it. They're the ones who should take the full brunt of penalty for their actions.
10 Feb 16
Originally posted by StartreaderThat was the point I was making
I didn't say week to week, padger. But you can look at the graph and records on my Profile for yourself. It's no secret.
To use the 5 yr average as a starting point for a separate clan challenge rating
This would then be affected by wins ,losses ,draws in clan challenges
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 326101
Originally posted by padgerFair enough. But I still think your 100 points average is too tight. Make it 200 and I'd find it much more reasonable.
That was the point I was making
To use the 5 yr average as a starting point for a separate clan challenge rating
This would then be affected by wins ,losses ,draws in clan challenges
11 Feb 16
Originally posted by SuzianneIgnorance of the law does not excuse!
No, I don't think anyone is blaming the players. Many of them pass their days in relative ignorance of what their clan leaders are up to. Look at the poor stiffs in the Easy Riders clan. They must be believing Robbie's nonsense, since he's apparently delivered on his promise to be #1. Most of them are probably blind to the deals he's made with his 'feed ...[text shortened]... a mockery of it. They're the ones who should take the full brunt of penalty for their actions.
