- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by wormwoodThey are not the same thing.
what's the point of having another timebank in addition to timebank?
The timebank is a allocation of time to the specific game itself, the vacation allocation woould be appropriate to all games across a 12 month period. All it means is I can have a couple of weeks in the sun worrying about little flashing clocks, and I don't have to get snotty messages of people because I have timed out the game they didn't bother moving in for 4 weeks.
If we have a holiday allowance and timebank the site can just automatically time out games when this all runs out. If the same rules apply to everyone the rules would be fair, and there would be no need for the endless debate on the moral dilema of timeouts.
Andrew
1 edit
Originally posted by latex bishopNope, you will be timed out.
So i just stop moving in all the games I am losing and so I do not lose any rating points?
Andrew
(or not!)
That depends on your opponent.
This modification only adds other options, so it increase flexibility.
As always, your opponent can time you out!
I think very few persons have understood that option 3 subsumes option 1.
Option 3 gives you the capacity of TO inmediatly a no responding player. (As you are acustumed). But it simplifies things in somewhat controversial cases. So, IMHO, option 3 is better. It's more sensible and flexible.
Remember, You Always Can TO a Non Responding Opponent.
I would have liked to have seen a distinction made between clan or tournament games, and individual challenges.
In a clan or tournament game, deleting the game if one player vanishes should not be an option. All games should count and the same rule should apply to everyone.
In individual challenges I see no reason why it shouldn't be up to the player if they prefer to delete the game rather than claim a timeout win. (I can't think of any reason why anyone would want to force a draw, but if people want that option as well then let them have it.)
Originally posted by CrazyLilTingdon't think so. without 'delete', I would've voted 3. now I voted 1 because of it. I don't want the game to be possibly deleted even if I lost.
I think very few persons have understood that option 3 subsumes option 1.
Option 3 gives you the capacity of TO inmediatly a no responding player. (As you are acustumed). But it simplifies things in somewhat controversial cases. So, IMHO, option 3 is better. It's more sensible and flexible.
Remember, You Always Can TO a Non Responding Opponent.
if there was an option for 'automatic timeout' I would've preferred it to all others.
1 edit
Originally posted by bolshevikPlease read my previous answer to David Tebb post.
I would have liked to have seen a distinction made between clan or tournament games, and individual challenges.
In a clan or tournament game, deleting the game if one player vanishes should not be an option. All games should count and the same rule should apply to everyone.
In individual challenges I see no reason why it shouldn't be up to the player one would want to force a draw, but if people want that option as well then let them have it.)
Thanks.
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodI agree. This seems to be the correct solution.
don't think so. without 'delete', I would've voted 3. now I voted 1 because of it. I don't want the game to be possibly deleted even if I lost.
if there was an option for 'automatic timeout' I would've preferred it to all others.
But it was not proposed as an option.
So I stay with option 3, which is the most flexible.
At least, IMHO.
May be I'm wrong, but I think no one can negate that it's the most flexible 🙂
regards
- J
Please read my previous answer to David Tebb post.I've read it, but I'm sure that there's any contradiction in what we're arguing. I'm saying yes : in a game like yours where there's nothing else at stake other than ratings and pride, if it suits the players to delete the game rather than have it end in a timeout, I've got no problem with that. But in a tournament or a clan match I don't think that option should be available.
Thanks.
Originally posted by bolshevikI agree with you but...
I've read it, but I'm sure that there's any contradiction in what we're arguing. I'm saying yes : in a game like yours where there's nothing else at stake other than ratings and pride, if it suits the players to delete the game rather than have it end in a timeout, I've got no problem with that. But in a tournament or a clan match I don't think that option should be available.
In tournament games you can't refuse to play a game. It is ridiculous. I think you can arrive to a "convenience" deal with your opponent. But that smells as lack of sportmanship. Anyway, I think it happens.
In clan matches, if opponents agree, they must be able to cancel the games, if they were imposed to play that match by a "fascist" clan leader.
As far as I can tell, not being a subs member, I only can suppose that such things happens. My only concerns are about individual challenges. So please take my comments as such, humble opinions from someone that is seeing what's happening from outside.
But honestly, I think I'm not too wrong.
regards
- J
Originally posted by CrazyLilTingHow wonderful that would be to play a game to a certain point and then have someone waste your time by just letting their games time out with the expectation of you giving them a draw. Yes, it would be your option but there is already enough complaints about timing players out as it is. What good are time banks if you don't stick to within your agreed limits. If the game is abandanded then you should win.
[b]"waaa! it's not ethical to claim a win in a drawn game!"
"waaa! it's not ethical to claim a draw in a lost game!"
It should not happen, cos the very first option you'll have is to claim a win by TO! So, if you claim a draw having won it by TO, your contender should be grateful 🙂
- J[/b]
Also this vacation abuse sounds fun, when someone goes on vacation everyone else is forced to go on one as well. Just go on a 30 day vacation as your time bank starts to deplete and hey you have all the time in the world to make your moves. Nice way for a certain clan to force a non sub out. I bet it gets voted in just so subs can mess with non subs. It's a conspiracy I tell you.😉
Originally posted by cashthetrashI believe it is happening just now 🙂
How wonderful that would be to play a game to a certain point and then have someone waste your time by just letting their games time out with the expectation of you giving them a draw. Yes, it would be your option but there is already enough complaints about timing players out as it is. What good are time banks if you don't stick to within your agreed l ...[text shortened]... t. I bet it gets voted in just so subs can mess with non subs. It's a conspiracy I tell you.😉