Logos, Banner by KaitlinB and Tom45.

Standing Subcommittee (Rules):
      rgadoury (chair), BosqueVerde, chesskix, Invicta-Knight

Standing Subcommittee (Technology):
     bmw2002 (chair), AlPearson, BosqueVerde, chesskix, DaveTheRook, fledermaus, Gomer, rgadoury

The role and purpose of the Steering Committee is to manage the affairs of the league, to set its direction and expansion, see to its advertisement and management, writing the Constitution, Statutes and Handbooks, and reviewing the rulings of the previous Oversight Committee. This is the ultimate governing body of Team 45 45 League with all rights and responsibilities. (Article III of the League Constitution)

League Members may stay informed of potential rules changes by watching this page. Prior to voting results being displayed here, members may make their comments known by notifying any Steering Committee member, who may choose to forward your comments to the Steering Committee. The Committee members will not disclose any details of the Committee discussions.

Item 1  T40 Tournament Parameters - Approved
Item 2  Automation to assist in player availability - Not approved
Item 3  Proposal to create League Ratings (based on T45 games only) to use as Fixed Ratings - Approved
Item 4  Proposed Qualifier tourney for new players as a means of cutting down on forfeits
Item 5  Report from the Test Subcommittee on Computer Use Detection.
Item 6  Open higher boards for absent players. - Not Approved
Item 7  Discussion of Forfeit Rates - 3 measures Approved
Item 8  Proposed change in Tiebreaks; addition of Buchholz or Solkoff - Tabled
Item 9 - Proposed addition of RR +3 - Tabled
Item 10 - Editorial Revisions per previous items

Item 1. T40 tournament parameters  - Approved

Submitted by the Chief TD: 12/01/2008

Time Control: 45 45
Sections: 6 (U2200, U2000, U1800, U1600, U1400, U1200)
Rounds: 6 - (possibly 7) followed by Playoffs

Team entries accepted: January 6 to January 20, 2009.
Team Entry Deadline: January 20, 2009.
Ratings "fixed" Date: Dec 24
(Some ratings may be adjusted by the Entry Clerk)

Round 1 Posted: 22:00 January 27, 2009.
Three rounds of playoffs will end April 7, 2009
Count of team RR reductions (if any) precedes board removal tie-breaks.
Tiebreak board removal rules start with board 4 this tournament

APPROVED: 11 yes, 0 no; Dec 17, 2008

Item 2.  Proposal to automate player-to-captain communication regarding availability
Submitted by SC Member Dec 2, 2008

Problem:  The occasional recalcitrant captain who ignores his players' stated availabilities.  Predicting that the captain will not own up to his own error, the player feels forced to play to avoid the RRR.

Proposed: Automated facility to prevent assignment of unavailable players.  Each week, each player would go in and click "available" for the next round. If he doesn't, he can't be inserted in the lineup. Now, the default setting should be "unavailable", forcing each player to consciously make himself available. And, if the player is unavailable, then the system would not allow a Captain to put him in the lineup for that round. We could also include a "select all" button...so a player who knows he'll be available every round will be able to click it and be done with it. Then, if he needs to, he can go back in the forum at a later date and make himself unavailable for a particular round if something in real life comes up.

NOT passed.  5 yes, 6 no; Dec 6 2008

Item 3.  Proposed adoption of league ratings as the basis for fixed ratings.
Submitted by Entry Clerk Dec 4, 2008

Problem: Fixed ratings are based on ICC standard rating performance only, standard ratings that include many non-league games. As a consequence, the player’ standard rating may be considerably lower than his expected or actual performance in league play. The standard rating is subject to manipulation, deliberate or unintended. Presently we try to dampen some of the effects of typical swings in rating by taking a 50-day average for a fixed period.

Solution: Base ratings on performance in league games only. A program to do this has been developed by Fledermaus. Most league ratings would follow fairly closely the standard rating. The immediate advantages are less sandbagging (ratings too low), since outside influences are nullified, and higher ratings for the consistent winners, who will find their league ratings running higher than their ICC standard.

Practical details. From the perspective of the Entry Clerk:

1. The Entry Clerk should still have the authority to modify fixed ratings based on other factors, but it is expected there will be far fewer such exceptions.
2. The league rating calculation is based on an entire tourney’s games. Ideally we would wait until all games have been played. As a practical matter, we may want to calculate after round 2 of the playoffs for most Fixed Ratings, and use the entire tourney for the ongoing calculations into the next tourney.
3. The decision on what period to count for league ratings may have a bearing on the scheduled start time of the next tournament.
4. It has been suggested that the higher of League or 50-day average be used for fixed ratings. I believe this would defeat the purpose of the league rating. The idea of a league rating is that if you play worse than your standard rating, perhaps due to superior play by your opponents, your rating should fall, and if you play better that your rating should rise. Or to put it differently, the standard rating becomes no more of a factor than a 15-minute or blitz rating would.
   

Necessary changes. Changes to section 4.E ii, and iii will be needed.

APPROVED: 11 YES, 0 No; Dec 10, 2008

Item 3.b  Will League Ratings begin in T40 or T41?

Do we want to implement new League ratings in some manner for T40 or do we want to work on it and have available for T41? Please keep in mind the impact this may have on agenda item #1 which has been tabled, concerning our dates for fixed ratings and if T40 would be able to start as scheduled.

A. T40 implementation
B. T41 implementation

Vote: 7 A., 3 B., and 1 abstention.  Dec 14, 2008

Item 4. Proposed Qualifier tourney for new players as a means of cutting down on forfeits.

Problem. The number of forfeits among new players is half again as great as among experienced league players. A check near the end of round 4 showed a forfeit rate of about 7.5 percent among league players, and over 13 percent among new players (all those with RR of 0 or less, for whatever reason). Although there are many reasons for the extra forfeits, it seems that leading reasons are (1) insufficient appreciation for the time commitments needed, week after week, (2) unfamiliarity with the scheduling requirements, and (3) failure, for whatever reasons, to show up on time for the games.

There were 165 forfeits through round 6. 107 for No Show, 47 for No Contact, 7 for Greater Blame, and 4 for Captain Error.

Solution. One way to try to improve the overall forfeit rate in our main event is to put the new players, and perhaps those returning from –2 RR suspensions, through a Qualifying tourney. In this Qualifier they would be expected to schedule and play a certain number of games. In those games, they would learn how to schedule the games, learn if they can really afford the time it takes out of a week to play a long game, establish their reliability, and get a start on establishing a league rating, The approach would be less formal, The TD for the Qualifier might be the one to assign players to teams and supervise the scheduling and playing.

Following is the outline suggested by rgadoury, Entry Clerk

Section 3.E (new) Qualifier tournaments.

Item 5. Report from the Test Subcommittee on Computer Use Detection.

A subcommittee of the Steering Committee has been investigating various measures that the league might take detecting cheating, especially computer use.  Extensive testing has been ongoing.  They will report to the full Steering Committee soon.

Item 6.  Open higher boards for absent players.
Submitted by rgadoury 

Problem. In earlier discussions on Item 2, comment was made about the captains’ reluctance to submit fewer than four boards, with the requirement that the open board must be at board 4. This constitutes double jeopardy, the set game loss at board 4, and weaker competition at the higher boards

Solution. A suggestion was made that higher boards could be left open instead. For example, if the top player is going to be absent for the week and unable to play, the team would be allowed to take their set game loss at board 1, and play whatever players they want to at boards 2-4. It might reduce “captain error” and deliberately posting players who are not available and have said so.

Proposal. Reset programming so any board can be left open when one or more of the top four players on the team must be absent.

NOT Approved:  8 no, 1 yes, and 2 abstentions.  Dec 22, 2008

Item 7.  Discussion of Forfeit Rates
Submitted by an SC member

The Steering Committee is asked to examine forfeit rates and to brainstorm ideas to increase the rate of played games.  In T39, there were 165 forfeits through round 6.

•  107   for No Show,
•   47    for No Contact,
• 7 for Greater Blame in failure to schedule the game,
• 4 for Captain Error. 
• See below for stats sorted by Reliability Rating.

In order to enjoy league play, we depend on our opponents to schedule and to show up to play the game. The nature of internet play means that there will always be some unavoidable forfeits. That's why we have the RR system. But can we reduce the rate of forfeits? Who is forfeiting? Why are they forfeiting? Are there further measures we can take to assist players in avoiding forfeits, while protecting their opponents from inordinate disruption? The Steering Committee is asked to examine the situation and to brainstorm ideas to increase the rate of played games in each category, especially No-shows and No-contacts. Some ideas to consider, just for starters:

1. Why so many no-shows? 
   1. Are players forgetting when their games are?
   2. Captains should send reminders.
   3. Should TDs or programming also send reminders?
   4. What else can we do?
2. Why the no-contacts? 
   1. Are captains not helping their players?  Recruiting players without making sure they know what they're getting in to?
   2. Do we need different requirements for captaining?
   3. Is there anything the League can do?
3. New players forfeit at a higher rate than experienced leaguers.  They either don't know the procedures, or sign up without the level of dedication that this type of event requires...
   1. If a new player forfeits his first game (or any game in his first tourney), should we forbid their entry into further rounds, unless they communicate to the Entry Clerk that they're ready?
   2. Should we redesign any of the League documents?
   3. Should new players be required to jump through extra hoops (quiz on procedures, Qualifier League, other?) in order gain entry to the league?
   4. Other?

Forfeit statistics by starting RR category, T39 Rounds 1-8 (as of afternoon of Dec 15)

Players who began T39 with +2 RR:

287 players played,
57 forfeits... 43 had one forfeit, 7 had two forfeits.
 17.4%  of the +2’s had forfeits,
+2’s had 33.9% of the 168 forfeits

Players who began T39 with +1 RR:

130 played,
39 forfeits.... 23 had one forfeit, 5 had two forfeits, 2 had three forfeits
 23.1%  of the +1’s had forfeits
+1’s had 23.2% of the 168 forfeits.

Players who began T39 with 0 RR:

134 played,
23 had one forfeit, 16 had two forfeits and suspension, 2 banned for cheating,
 30.6%  of the 0’s had forfeits,
0’s had 26.8% of the 168 forfeits

Players who began T39 with -1 RR:

22 played, 11 had a forfeit and were suspended.
 50.0%  of the –1’s had forfeits.

Combined statistics:

156 –1 and 0 RR players accounted for 72 forfeits.
417 +1 and +2 RR players accounted for 96 forfeits
27.2% of the membership (0 and –1) accounted for 42.8% of the forfeits
72.8% of the membership (+1 and +2) accounted for 57.2% of the forfeits.

The following suggestions resulted from a survey of captains, and from the SC discussion:

1. Keep'm out longer: Longer Suspensions upon reaching -2 (current duration is 1 tourney). APPROVED
2. Get'm out sooner: Upon FIRST forfeit (all players execpt RR+2), NOT eligible to be in lineup unless personally contacts the EC. APPROVED FOR T41
3. Get rid of'm completely: Permanent ban upon second -2. NOT approved
4. Captains: Add requirements for captaining (currently none, perhaps must be +1?).  NOT approved
5. Reminders: Either a tell when logging on ("your next League game is in 3 days, at 22:30 ICC time"), and/or messages/emails sent 24 hours and 2 hours prior to game time. +2's could opt out. APPROVED
6. Qualifier event: Mandatory 3-game practice event for league newbies. NOT approved

Vote, Jan 4, 2009:

Part 1: APPROVED - 8 yes, 2 no. <Longer suspensions>
Part 2: APPROVED FOR T41 - 5 yes, 4 no, 1 abstention. <Forfeit requires player to contact EC>
Part 3: NOT approved - 8 no, 2 yes.
Part 4: NOT approved - 6 no, 1 yes, 3 abstentions.
Part 5: APPROVED - 5 yes, 4 no, 1 abstention. <Reminders>
Part 6: NOT approved - 8 no, 1 yes, 1 abstention.

Item 7, Part 7.  Proposed Change to Conceded games scoring.
Submitted by an SC member

I don't know how many forfeits were "Conceded" Games. I also observed numerous games that could have been "Conceded" if that rule was better understood by our membership. I suggest that "Conceded" games be scored as a "Set Game" instead of a forfeit to help people deal with conflicts that force them into making priority choices than often lead to forfeit. Yes, a Played Game is always better than a conceded game but both are better than an actual forfeit (with an offended party).

Item #7, part 7 has not passed by a vote of 5 no, 4 yes, 1 abstain.  Jan 10, 2009

Item 8.  Tiebreaks: proposal to replace board removal with Buchholz (FIDE) or Solkoff (USCF).
Submitted by an SC member
TABLED

I am hoping here we can introduce a new tiebreak method, and get rid of the 'board removal' thingie we have to deal with on a tourney-by-tourney basis. As far as I have heard, nobody likes board removal to determine things....and it happens far too frequently. So, we must come up with a new tiebreak method. Currently, we have 5 tiebreak 'steps', 4 of which should stay the same:

#1: GP's
#2: Head-to-head MP's
#3: Head-to-head GP's
#4: Fewest RR reductions

All of these are good; we should leave these alone. The new substitution tiebreak as #5, instead of a board removal, would be....

#5: Buchholz (FIDE) or Solkoff (USCF). These are based on sum of opponent's scores. The higher Buchholz score would move on if steps 1-4 don't produce a clear 'winner.' This Buchholz method is also used in the Sunday 45-5 to determine a winner....for those of you who play in that tourney. For anyone who wants more info on this tiebreak system (or any other), here's a page to read: http://www.swissperfect.com/tiebreak.htm
I don't know how long it would take to set up, but I'd imagine T42 would be a good target. This would give enough time for proper testing, too. Something else I've noticed, too: our tiebreaks 1-4 don't really break that many ties; board removal comes into play far too often. Therefore, I'm submitting this for SC discussion and vote for implementation asap.....

Item 9.  Proposed addition of a RR level of RR+3
Submitted by rgadoury
TABLED

Proposed: that players with three or more tourneys in succession with no forfeits could move to RR of +3. There would still be a three team limit, but the odd forfeit would not cost the player a team, as the player would be at +2 and still be able to be on three teams. That is a bonus for the reliable players.

Item 10.  Editorial Revisions of Statutes, per previous items in this SC
Posted Jan 19, 2009

Under our editorial revision policy, unless a SC member wishes to bring it up for further debate, these  changes will be incorporated into the Statutes in one week.

Per Item 3, establishing League Ratings:

1.A.ix OLD : Fixed Rating - A player's standard rating at the time they are officially entered into a tournament.
1.A.ix NEW : Fixed Rating (FR) - A player's League Rating, assigned by the Entry Clerk, and used for calculating team average. ¶ SC 39-40

---

Addition of 1.A.xxxii League Rating (LR) - A rating based on a member's performance in T45L. ¶ SC 39-40

---

4.E.ii OLD
The current ratings for all present and former league members will be collected daily from the Round 1 Pairing Posting Deadline through Playoff Round 1 Pairing Posting Deadline. The computed average-daily-rating shall be the player’s Fixed Rating for the next tournament. Fixed ratings for new players and those returning from older tourneys will be determined by the Entry Clerk, utilizing data collected once they complete a profile. ¶SC32-33

4.E.ii NEW
Fixed Ratings shall be based on League Ratings. League Ratings will generally be the ending League Rating from the player's last tournament, but may be adjusted based on other data. Fixed ratings for new players and those returning from older tourneys will be determined by the Entry Clerk after a profile is completed. ¶SC39-40

Per Item 7, part 1, lengthening suspension times:
Under our editorial revision policy, unless a SC member wishes to bring it up for further debate, these  changes will be incorporated into the Statutes in one week.

Statute 17.A.i. a and c  OLD:

Multiple RR reductions can result in a suspension from league play. One RR Point is deducted for each forfeit; at "-2" RR a player is suspended from the remainder of the present tourney and all of the next.

a. A player who receives another forfeit suspension within four tourneys after being reinstated from the previous suspension shall be suspended from league play for four complete tourneys.  ¶ SC 36-37

Statute 17.A.i. a and c  NEW:

c. Multiple RR reductions can result in a suspension from league play. One RR Point is deducted for each forfeit; at "-2" RR a player is suspended from the remainder of the present tourney and all of the next two tournaments.

A player who receives another forfeit suspension within four tourneys after being reinstated from the previous suspension shall be suspended from league play for four complete tourneys.  ¶ SC 36-37

Per Item 7, part 2, establishing required player action after first forfeit
Under our editorial revision policy, unless a SC member wishes to bring it up for further debate, these  changes will be incorporated into the Statutes in one week.

THIS REVISION IS TABLED, PENDING REVIEW BY THE RULES SUBCOMMITTEE

Addition to Statute 8 - Board Assignment, which would then read:

A. Team captains will now post their board assignments directly to the Team4545League.org/captains page no later than Tuesday at 22:00 ICC server time. If a team roster is changed after posting board assignments, it is the captain's responsibility to resubmit revised board assignments before the pairing posting deadline. Any player in a lineup who is no longer on the roster will either play the game (if eligible) or have their game ruled a set game loss. ¶ SC 27-28

B. If the Team Captain fails to submit a Board Assignment list for a given round, it will be assumed that the Team will play their top four players, which shall be known as the Default Board Assignment. At the TD's discretion, a Team Captain may submit an alternative Default Board Assignment list which may be used if the Team Captain fails to submit another for a given round.

C.  Players who forfeit (except those at RR +2) must be withheld from subsequent Board Assignments until they personally contact the Entry Clerk requesting admission. ¶ SC 38-40

D. Once publicly posted, the pairings should not be changed. ¶ SC25-26

Previous SC Agendas: