Originally posted by KingDavid403
As long as you stay within the time limit you and your opponent agreed upon before the start of the game.
And as long as the site remains as available as it claims it will. When the site fails in its
capacity as transmitter of move information, then the site has a duty to make recompense, just
as Russ justly has done. The justified expectation of the players is that they will be able to make
a move 24 hours a day, just like in any correspondence chess game. When that expectation
is not met because of a failure of the site, then the site rightly owes something to the player
denied that which he rightly expects.
Guess you better have longer time out time banks next time on your games if your going to wait until the last minute to submit your moves on certain games.
Look, I have never begrudged anyone who has taken a timeout on me, nor have I ever tolerated
whiners who cry about games they lost by timeout. I fully agree that, when a player consents
to a certain set of conditions, they ought to be held to those conditions.
However, this is contingent on the site's meeting its conditions of availability. This is
the one thing that you are failing to acknowledge. If I fail to make a move on my own, then
it is my fault. If I am unable to make a move because the site is down, then it is not my fault
and I should not be penalized for it. That you think a player ought to stay awake, or continue
to pay at a internet café, or risk getting in trouble with one's boss, or mooch off a friend in
order to make a move at a different time than they planned (again, because the site ought to
be available all the time) is absurd. Sure your entitled to your opinion, even if it's closed-minded.
I'm done talking or explaining on this subject. My point is clear. And it won't change.
Yup. Here it is. Translation: My mind is closed. Nothing you can say will open it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KingDavid403
I'm done talking or explaining on this subject. My point is clear. And it won't change.
Originally posted by Nemesio
Yup. Here it is. Translation: My mind is closed. Nothing you can say will open it.
I don't think this is the right translation, not at all. My translation would be something like this: "Oh, he doesn't listen, and I don't want to repeat myself again. I've said all there is to be said."
I've been in the same situation myself: Where my debatant can't accept that I have another opinion that he does. And he wants to change my mind. He thinks that the one having the last word in the discussuion is the winner of the discussion and therefore has the right opinion. Not true.
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio, You do have the perfect avatar for yourself. I will give you that. All mouth and no brain.
Originally posted by KingDavid403
[b]As long as you stay within the time limit you and your opponent agreed upon before the start of the game.
And as long as the site remains as available as it claims it will. When the site fails in its
capacity as transmitter of move information, then the site has a duty to make recompense, just
as Russ j Here it is. Translation: My mind is closed. Nothing you can say will open it.
Nemesio[/b]
When that expectation
is not met because of a failure of the site, then the site rightly owes something to the player
denied that which he rightly expects.
I and others were very close to claiming a timeout win on someone who has not moved for weeks on our games, and either does not seem to care about the games, or they have already lost the game but are just trying to drag it on long as possible to deny their opponent the win as long as possible (toying with them). Now the site goes down because of a glitch right before we were ready to claim the timeout. Hours later the site comes back online denying us the right to claim the timeouts another 2 days. Why should we be denied a win which we rightly expect from the site??? Why should the person who has had plenty of time to move on their games and has moved on all their other games be given more time to make their moves when they have clearly have had the chance for weeks. Everything you said here can cover both sides of the opinions on this issue.
.Yup. Here it is. Translation: My mind is closed. Nothing you can say will open it.
YOUR translation here fits you perfect on this issue. And this is your stance, not mine. I made my point. My opinion. Others have their opinions which they are entitled to weather it agrees with mine or not. Some agree with mine and some don't. Some brought up some important issues on this subject.
Russ did what he thought was the best way to be fair to all by imposing a 48 hr ban on claiming timeouts.
My opinion is that there is two sides to claiming timeouts and some people are still being denied what they rightly expect from the site. And I and others think there is a fairer way. And I stated it. Weather you like my opinion or not does not matter to me.
Now I hope my opinion is clear to you Nemesio. If not close your mouth for once and listen. My opinion does not agree with yours. Can you deal with it????
It is fair if everyone gets the same treatment (in this case, they have been).
If the site was to decide that one player gets their move time frozen, while another player has their timebank frozen, then that will be unfair.
The site developers have decided what compensation and that compensation has been applied to everyone fairly.
Originally posted by lauseyThe RHP staff put the 48 hr ban on claiming timeouts after the site was down for awhile. It was not a bad decision. And I can live with it.
It is fair if everyone gets the same treatment (in this case, they have been).
If the site was to decide that one player gets their move time frozen, while another player has their timebank frozen, then that will be unfair.
The site developers have decided what compensation and that compensation has been applied to everyone fairly.
However, I and others have pointed out there is some unfairness to some with that decision. And we gave our opinion on what we thought was maybe a better idea. It may be right, and it may be wrong. Or it may be half right, and half wrong.
That's our opinion. I could go into great detail on why I feel this way about timeouts. But I'm not. Some people also pointed out some things like 24hr timeout games with no time bank, and that it would be unfair if they were timed out. I agree in this case, and similar cases.
So maybe only a 24hr ban on timeouts instead. Not 48. or something to that effect.
The 48hr ban on timeouts was put in place. I can live with it. I don't think the site developers were trying to be unfair in making that decision. However it is unfair to some and I and others pointed that out, and we brought up some maybe alternatives for the next time it happens. You can agree, or disagree with it, that's your opinion, and you have every right to it. The End.
Time-outs, time-banks, stopped clocks, what-ev. I'm more worried about the game records... I hit the 'back' button on an analyze game window yesterday and a position came up in which there was only one King on the board... 😕 I hope this tool Russ mentioned allows me to fix at least some of these games without having to try and manually edit the busted PGN text... I'm not sure my memory is up to the task, but it's hard to say. If the games aren't destined for a long life in my DB, then they're dead to me. 😞
Originally posted by DeepGreeneThe only way I have found to reset the analyze board tool to the proper position of a corrupt pgn game is to reopen the analyze board tool allover from the beginning. You can analyze forward and your fine. But to reset it to the proper posistion of the game to go over it again, you have to reopen the analyze board from the beginning.
Time-outs, time-banks, stopped clocks, what-ev. I'm more worried about the game records... I hit the 'back' button on an analyze game window yesterday and a position came up in which there was only one King on the board... 😕 I hope this tool Russ mentioned allows me to fix at least some of these games without having to try and manually edit the buste ...[text shortened]... say. If the games aren't destined for a long life in my DB, then they're dead to me. 😞
A little manual work, but it's workable.
Originally posted by FabianFnasHe said it himself: His position will not change. By contrast, I'm fully
I don't think this is the right translation, not at all. My translation would be something like this: "Oh, he doesn't listen, and I don't want to repeat myself again. I've said all there is to be said."
opened to the possibility that his position is the better one. If he made
an argument that in fact had anything to do with fairness -- that is,
showed how his is more just than mine -- I would adopt his and reject
mine, and would do so without hesitation.
Clearly, all that 'is to be said' has not been said, since I pointed out
how his position is unjust and doesn't take into account the different
sorts of internet access that people have and penalizes those who
are unable to access RHP at a whim.
You'll notice that his next post begins with an insult rather than addressing
the substance of my post (the aforementioned unfairness of his unchangable
position). Does this sound opened minded to you?
Nemesio
Originally posted by KingDavid403
Now the site goes down because of a glitch right before we were ready to claim the timeout. Hours later the site comes back online denying us the right to claim the timeouts another 2 days. Why should we be denied a win which we rightly expect from the site???
Why? Because perhaps during that several-hour glitch, perhaps they strove
to make their move. Since the site failed in its responsibility to
make moves available to everyone, the site is responsible for making
recompense.
Why should the person who has had plenty of time to move on their games and has moved on all their other games be given more time to make their moves when they have clearly have had the chance for weeks.
Why? Because they didn't get the chance during the glitch hours that
they should have.
Truth be told, as it was in your case, someone who has managed his
time so poorly that they have expended their timebank is not likely to
benefit all that much from a two-day reprieve. However, someone who
gets timed out even if they tried to move is punished unjustly.
YOUR translation here fits you perfect on this issue. And this is your stance, not mine. I made my point. My opinion. Others have their opinions which they are entitled to weather it agrees with mine or not. Some agree with mine and some don't. Some brought up some important issues on this subject.
As I said above: I'm opened to the possibility that your opinion makes
more sense, but you've failed to compel me. My positions on issues
are always subject to change because I admit that it's possible that I've
not always thought things through. You, by contrast, have said, in as
many words, that your position 'won't change.' Period. No matter what.
&c. That's what closed-minded means, David: you will hold onto a possition
irrespective of the possible compelling arguments to the contrary. I'm
not even claiming that my argument is the world's most persuasive; I'm
lamenting that you wouldn't change even if it were the case.
Now I hope my opinion is clear to you Nemesio. If not close your mouth for once and listen. My opinion does not agree with yours. Can you deal with it????
Your opinion was clear from the getgo. I never said it was unclear. I
merely said that it was a bad one and I offered the reasons why it was
bad (because it is unjust). I offered my position with the misguided
sense that perhaps you were opened to the possibility of change. By
your own admission, you are not.
Cheers,
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio😴😲 Did someone say something?? Nope guess not.😴😴😴
Originally posted by KingDavid403
[b]Now the site goes down because of a glitch right before we were ready to claim the timeout. Hours later the site comes back online denying us the right to claim the timeouts another 2 days. Why should we be denied a win which we rightly expect from the site???
Why? Because perhaps during that several-hou possibility of change. By
your own admission, you are not.
Cheers,
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioYou have your right to an opinion, and he has his right to his opinion. If you can't change his opinion, and he cannot change yours, what do we have? A stalemate.
He said it himself: His position will not change. By contrast, I'm fully
opened to the possibility that his position is the better one. If he made
an argument that in fact had anything to do with fairness -- that is,
showed how his is more just than mine -- I would adopt his and reject
mine, and would do so without hesitation.
Clearly, all that ' ...[text shortened]... unfairness of his unchangable
position). Does this sound opened minded to you?
Nemesio
Do you want to win the discussion? Does he want to win it? And depending of who win the discussion does that change what the real Truth is? And does it matters?
He has mad his point, and you yours. He don't want to discuss it further, because it is not leading anywhere. And you feel that you are the winner? I say you're not. There is not winner, unless some divine god is telling us who's the winner.
So when he offers a draw, and you want to play further, who has then lost the game?
Call it a day, don't let it go any further...
Originally posted by KingDavid403If you don't have any argument to present kingdavid then it's best to just keep quiet. Responses like that just make you look stupid.
😴😲 Did someone say something?? Nope guess not.😴😴😴
Also it hardly benefits an Announcement thread for it to be cluttered with such stuff.
For what it's worth, Nemesio is actually presenting reasonable points. The fact that you're not prepared to address them sensibly speaks volumes.
You seem to believe that you've been hard done by by the suspension. You have not. Your opponent has not been given 24 hours of free playing time, the clocks have just been suspended for 24 hours. There's a key difference there that you can't see. But, unfortunately, I can't help you with that.