1 edit
"I'd say the thread originator will already have been added to a few this guy pisses me off lists.[/b] "
Lol, I'm sure I have! Actually, I not normally so beligerent. Sometime sanctimonius (but never whiney.
My post was only about open challenges. Anyway, off to watch the football. England is playing a friendly. No wait, whats this? They've arrived at the stadium but the other team "cant be bothered". Good thing its all allowed by the rules!
Originally posted by Palynka
[What bothers me is people accusing others of rudeness for doing something that they are allowed to do and without knowing the reasons on why they did it.[/b]
If someone makes a commitment and breaks it, it is rude. ESPECIALLY if they dont inform you why they did it.
Originally posted by PalynkaIn almost every area of life one can invite people to take part in something and they have a perfect right to decline. And in almost every areaof life they can agree to come along and then not show up. I agree they have a legal right to do so as the rules currently stand, but in almost every area, to do so is frowned upon and considered rude.
The thing is that the option to delete the game in the first moves is part of that commitment.
This is especially the case for events where the number of places is limited. If someone doesnt show up to your party, no big deal. If on the other hand you have 2 tickets to the cinema and they dont show its much more rude because they have wasted your time and you could have bought someone else.
Same thing goes for open challenges. No one demands you accept them. but if you do, you should follow through. Not beacsue of the 10 seconds it takes to repost the challenge, but because the wait until a serious opponent turns up has to start all over again.
Originally posted by TheoryhackIt's more like they agree to go to a concert with you sit down, then get up and leave when the curtains open. They would still be charged for the show - unlike here with no points deducted and hence no deterrent.
In almost every area of life one can invite people to take part in something and they have a perfect right to decline. And in almost every areaof life they can agree to come along and then not show up. I agree they have a legal right to do so as the rules currently stand, but in almost every area, to do so is frowned upon and considered rude.
This is ...[text shortened]... e challenge, but because the wait until a serious opponent turns up has to start all over again.
Some idiots do it deliberately to irritate.
1 edit
Originally posted by reader1107Then blame Russ for making the site with this availiable option. Which I think would be rude. Don't blame your opponent for using every available option to their advantage or for following the rules. No one seems to say it's rude to stall a game out for months when they are losing, they just claim it is part of the time bank rules. (Well some do.) When in reality they are hoping you resign from boredom or they can gain some ratings points. I find that rude. But so what if it is rude. If you don't like the time bank don't except it. So for that reason, why complain? Chess is war and war is rude. There are times I don't happen to like a certain opening. Or I see something in the profile or was sent a message that bothers me. Sometimes I see something in some of their past games I don't like. That is why the two move option is there. I take that time to study my opponent. You don't always have time to check this out before you except a challenge. If Russ changes the rules then so be it. But until he does rude or not, I will take advantage of the option when I choose. Some people might think resigning is rude. Others might think the opposite. You can't please every one so sometimes you need to please yourself. You know what is poor sportsmanship? Poor sportsmanship is complaining about previously established rules when they are followed. If you want to change the rules, then make a request to do so. That is fine. But don't make up a story about someone being rude because it doesn't fit inside your window of beliefs. Because that is also rude. This is only my oppinion not an attack on your oppinion.
It's rude. It's like saying *Hey, I'll play anybody! Oh, wait. Anybody but you.* It's also *in the rules* that you can delete a challenge after accepting it, but the point of the thread is that both of these fall under the heading of unsportsmanlike conduct.
Originally posted by cashthetrashWell, if it's not rude it's damn cheeky IMO, grabbing an invite to prevent anyone else taking it, meanwhile going and checking the player out and then changing your mind. There should be some countermeasure.
Then blame Russ for making the site with this availiable option. Which I think would be rude. Don't blame your opponent for using every available option to their advantage or for following the rules. No one seems to say it's rude to stall a game out for months when they are losing, they just claim it is part of the time bank rules. (Well some do.) When ...[text shortened]... . Because that is also rude. This is only my oppinion not an attack on your oppinion.
It has been suggested in site ideas a few times.
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveSo you are saying Russ is cheeky for making that a site feature? Or just if someone uses the site feature?
Well, if it's not rude it's damn cheeky IMO, grabbing an invite to prevent anyone else taking it, meanwhile going and checking the player out and then changing your mind. There should be some countermeasure.
It has been suggested in site ideas a few times.
Originally posted by cashthetrashI suspect it wasn't made a feature for the purpose of timewasting but more probably for when the opponent was not moving. Whatever, I consider the feature is often abused. But that's just my opinion. 😛
So you are saying Russ is cheeky for making that a site feature? Or just if someone uses the site feature?