Originally posted by Phlabibit
The clan score system stunk from day one, everything else is just glaze on the bundt cake. If this is a problem, I like the idea of Active players needing to finish active games before new members can start... but that raises another problem when someone has to leave a clan for a good reason.

Just like trying to 'fix' the vacation system... you're taking good things away from players who are not trying to 'abuse' the system.

P-

Sorry, but I don't see how my proposal [in its current form, not the original version] takes anything away from individual players. [They would still be allowed to play out their clan games. They would still get those games rated. They would still get personal stats updated.] The only thing it takes away is points from the clan that would otherwise profit from the wins/draws of a non-clan member.

I have been trying to work with people and refine the proposal to best address the problem of clan rotation without unduly harming the individual player. The problem is that everyone seems to be reading only the very first post in the thread. 😞

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The proposal has been modified long ago to address the issue of player freedom. The fact that you will not read the updated version of the proposal is your problem.

This post was directed at Amsterdamn's proposal, not yours.

Your "solution" doesn't address "player freedom" as it still penalizes the clan people agreed to play for. As I said a page ago:

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.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Well, RHP/Russ ought to decide what it/he really wants.

Do we want a clan system where the top team is the one who recruits the most players to play for them?

Or do we want to actually enforce the 20-member limit?

The 20 member limit is enforced; a clan can't have more than 20 members at one time. Period.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the type of "enforcement" you are espousing (i.e. extension of the limit to include ex-players' games to the extent of denying people the chance to finish their games for their clans' benefit) was ever considered a goal of the membership limit. In none of the discussions regarding allowable clan size was competitive balance ever brought up; the main issues were the clan leaders' ability to manage a bigger clan size and the desire to limit clan size so new clans could emerge and get members.

So we have a non-existent "problem" with a "solution" that thwarts the wills of the individual player and that would apply to a great many of them, perhaps most (many players join and then leave clans for whatever reason but still want to honor the obligation to the clan that they voluntarily accepted). All to effect a tiny number of clans' (i.e. those with 20 players) meaningless race for points in the LAME CLAN CHALLENGE SCORING SYSTEM. The scrapping of the system altogether would be a far better "solution".

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sorry, but I don't see how my proposal [in its current form, not the original version] takes anything away from individual players. [They would still be allowed to play out their clan games. They would still get those games rated. They would still get personal stats updated.] The only thing it takes away is points from the clan that would otherwis ...[text shortened]... er. The problem is that everyone seems to be reading only the very first post in the thread. 😞

Let's say I am in a clan, and I played 3 or 4 matches. Next, I put myself as unavailable because that is all I wanted.

Are you saying that I have to hold the spot there inactive or the games won't count? Now I'm holding a clan up, and I'm the bad guy because I don't play a ton of games.

Why shouldn't I be able to drop out and let a more active player play for the clan? Why can't I continue my clan games for that clan although I'm not active in the clan anymore?

I really don't see the problem with people rotating in and out of clans. Clans are supposed to be fun, and some clan leaders can get players like me involved in their clan for a few matches and everyone has fun.

If a clan leader is able to get many users to come in and play for them, they are running a good clan. Limiting clans to only 20 active members is taking away fun from the whole system and for what?

P-

Originally posted by no1marauder
This post was directed at Amsterdamn's proposal, not yours.

Your "solution" doesn't address "player freedom" as it still penalizes the clan people agreed to play for. As I said a page ago:

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 cl ...[text shortened]... ogical reason for their games not to count for the clan. That's what they signed up for.

This post was directed at Amsterdamn's proposal, not yours.

Right...my bad...this problem of not reading posts seems to be infectious. 😞

Your "solution" doesn't address "player freedom" as it still penalizes the clan people agreed to play for.

The clan needs to be penalized if it has 21 or more players playing clan games and scoring points for it at the same time. The impact to player freedom is minimal.

For the most part, people wanting their clan to benefit from the games they win for that clan is admirable. The only exception is when that clan is getting points from 21, 22, 25, 30, etc. different players at the same time. To me, this is a highly logical reason to prevent players who leave a clan from continuing to score points for that clan. The 20-player limit is sensible because it keeps competitive clans at the same maximum size, preventing one clan from getting an unfair advantage over the others by recruiting more players. It needs to be enforced.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]This post was directed at Amsterdamn's proposal, not yours.

Right...my bad...this problem of not reading posts seems to be infectious. 😞

Your "solution" doesn't address "player freedom" as it still penalizes the clan people agreed to play for.

The clan needs to be penalized if it has 21 or more players playing clan games an ...[text shortened]... g an unfair advantage over the others by recruiting more players. It needs to be enforced.[/b]

Shame on you!

fiftyonehz
http://www.timeforchess.com/clanchallenge/viewchallenge.php?challengeid=123709

DeepGreene
http://www.timeforchess.com/clanchallenge/viewchallenge.php?challengeid=125602

searcy1977
http://www.timeforchess.com/clanchallenge/viewchallenge.php?challengeid=127340

3 plus 19 is 22 users in your clan. And that was just checking a few on page 2 of your challenge list.

P-

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]This post was directed at Amsterdamn's proposal, not yours.

Right...my bad...this problem of not reading posts seems to be infectious. 😞

Your "solution" doesn't address "player freedom" as it still penalizes the clan people agreed to play for.

The clan needs to be penalized if it has 21 or more players playing clan games an ...[text shortened]... g an unfair advantage over the others by recruiting more players. It needs to be enforced.[/b]

As I have stated several times, the 20 person membership limitation was never intended to assure "competitive balance". Your asking for it to be enforced in a way that severely limits what a player can do (even though you absolutely refuse to admit it). The bottom line is that a player wants his clan games to count for his clan EVEN WHEN HE LEAVES THE CLAN and there is no compelling reason to create an "exception".

A creation of a new clan scoring system which would create some risk for loading up players with games and clans with challenges would be a far better solution that wouldn't have the negative effect on player mobility that you seem to want sooooooooooo badly.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The 20 member limit is enforced; a clan can't have more than 20 members at one time. Period.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the type of "enforcement" you are espousing (i.e. extension of the limit to include ex-players' games to the extent of denying people the chance to finish their games for their clans' benefit) was ever c ...[text shortened]... G SYSTEM. The scrapping of the system altogether would be a far better "solution".

No, the 20-member limit is a joke. So what if you go to the clan page and see only 20 names? That means nothing. The fact remains, nothing stops a clan leader from recruiting as many players as he likes, and giving them as many games as they'll agree to take. Rotation makes this trivially easy.

And so what if people missed this point during the original discussions about clan size? Things like the clan system evolve. People find loopholes in the rules, and those sometimes need to be closed, regardless of whether people in the past anticipated them or not.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Let's say I am in a clan, and I played 3 or 4 matches. Next, I put myself as unavailable because that is all I wanted.

Are you saying that I have to hold the spot there inactive or the games won't count? Now I'm holding a clan up, and I'm the bad guy because I don't play a ton of games.

Why shouldn't I be able to drop out and let a more active play ...[text shortened]... to only 20 active members is taking away fun from the whole system and for what?

P-

Well, at least abolishing the 20-player limit is logically consistent with allowing rotation. I'd prefer that clan competition be structured more like OTB team tournaments, ICCF team tournaments, or Olympiads [at least in the sense that there is a fixed number of players and alternates for each team], but to each his own. I'm curious how a vote would go on this.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, the 20-member limit is a joke. So what if you go to the clan page and see only 20 names? That means nothing. The fact remains, nothing stops a clan leader from recruiting as many players as he likes, and giving them as many games as they'll agree to take. Rotation makes this trivially easy.

And so what if people missed this point during the origin ...[text shortened]... sometimes need to be closed, regardless of whether people in the past anticipated them or not.

Yeah, I'm sure it happens all the time. Some clans probably have 50 members constantly rotating in and out.🙄

You think the clan membership maximum's reason for existence is to assure competitive balance; you are quite wrong. There's no "loophole"; clans can have 20 members at a time. If people leave they are allowed to finish their clan games. This is not a "loophole" it is the way it was intended. People anticipated that people would leave clans with games to be played and expected them to finish them and expected the clan leader to replace the leaving player if he could. So, you're essentially bitching about the system working as intended.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Shame on you!

fiftyonehz
http://www.timeforchess.com/clanchallenge/viewchallenge.php?challengeid=123709

DeepGreene
http://www.timeforchess.com/clanchallenge/viewchallenge.php?challengeid=125602

searcy1977
http://www.timeforchess.com/clanchallenge/viewchallenge.php?challengeid=127340

3 plus 19 is 22 users in your clan. And that was just checking a few on page 2 of your challenge list.

P-

Yes, I am aware that my proposal would affect my own clan. So be it. I am also aware that many clans do not rotate intentionally. That's beside the point. The point is that the rules should be consistent. The onus is on the site to fix the rules.

Also, as I have said earlier in the thread, if RHP continues to allow rotation, then clan leaders are justified in continuing to do so.

Originally posted by no1marauder
As I have stated several times, the 20 person membership limitation was never intended to assure "competitive balance". Your asking for it to be enforced in a way that severely limits what a player can do (even though you absolutely refuse to admit it). The bottom line is that a player wants his clan games to count for his clan EVEN WHEN HE LEAVES THE CL ldn't have the negative effect on player mobility that you seem to want sooooooooooo badly.

Rather than rehash the same arguments, I will ask you this: Do you think the 20-player limit should be kept? Wouldn't it be better to just do away with it entirely? What purpose does it serve now?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yeah, I'm sure it happens all the time. Some clans probably have 50 members constantly rotating in and out.🙄

You think the clan membership maximum's reason for existence is to assure competitive balance; you are quite wrong. There's no "loophole"; clans can have 20 members at a time. If people leave they are allowed to finish their clan ...[text shortened]... layer if he could. So, you're essentially bitching about the system working as intended.

And we all know people never have logically inconsistent intentions, right? 😀

Originally posted by SwissGambit
And we all know people never have logically inconsistent intentions, right? 😀

We assume they don't until it is shown they did.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Rather than rehash the same arguments, I will ask you this: Do you think the 20-player limit should be kept? Wouldn't it be better to just do away with it entirely? What purpose does it serve now?

My opinion hasn't changed from January 2005 when I posted this regarding the vote on clan size:

I'd vote for less than 20 if it was an option; 12 would be a good number. You'd be able to field 2 league teams and use all your players (I'd make using all your players mandatory in the leagues before any player could be on 2 league teams). What is the sense of larger and larger clans? Sure, Shaul and others want to hog all the good players but is that good for RHP? Of course not! I urge everybody to vote for keeping maximum clan size at 20; that's plenty and makes it easier for newer clans to recruit members.

http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=18583&page=2

You should read that thread and try to find any mention of "competitive balance".