Next time you challenge someone for a 3-day timeout game, and your opponent hasn't moved in 3.01 days, send him/her an email warning instead of immediately claiming victory. This possibility to first react politely is one of the (many) great features making playing at this site fun. So, use it.
I disagree. You agreed to a game with a three day timeout, which means you agreed to abide by
all the rules inherit within such a game. If you could not meet those requirements you should not
have accepted the challenge. Perhaps it was a little cold blooded for paulisfree2b to claim the
victory, but it was well within his rights. You have nobody but yourself to blame for your defeat.
Chances are Paulisfree2b checked out bagger's profile before he
challenged him and knew he preferrd longer timeout periods. So his
decision to challenge him (as white, of course) with a three-day
timeout shows a lack of sportsmanship. Although you are correct that
bagger should have checked the details of his game and deleted it if
he thought he couldn't move every three days, sometimes you get
challenged and the game just pops up on your screen, you know the
opening you want to play, and before you think about it you're more
than two moves in and can't delete the game. Furthermore, they were
only 5 moves into the game when Paulisfree2b timed him out. This,
again, shows a real lack of sportmanship. Besides, claiming that
someone has acted within their rights does not imply that their action
is above censure. Uttering racist slurs is morally reprehensible, even
though racists have the right to utter them. By parity of reasoning,
although paulisfree2b was within his rights to challenge bagger with a
timeout limit he knew bagger didn't prefer, fail to send a reminder
when bagger failed to move, then time him out even though the
game had just begun, these actions are still lame.
What??? Your assumptions concerning Paulisfree2b's possible motives are totally unfounded. On
what could you possibly base that assumption? And since when does someone have a right to utter
racist slurs? It is grounds for termination if you utter them in the workplace. Plus there are laws (in
many countries) against libel and hate crimes. Your whole post borders on utter nonsense. The
only line of reasoning that I can extract from it is that you think time limits should be soft
guidelines and not hard and fast rules. That's all well and fine if you play against someone who
feels the same way, but guess what? The rules of RHP state that I can claim a victory against
someone who does move within the agreed upon time limit. If Bagger had asked Paulisfree2b not
to time out on him due to extenuating circumstances, that would be one thing. But he gives no
indication of having done that. In conclusion, I restate that Bagger has nobody but himself to
blame for his loss. I'm sure Paulisfree2b has better things to do than sit around 3.1 days waiting
for the laggards of RHP to make a single move.
I try to be an go between for people when I see that they are nearly
sayin the same thing & not quite agreeing.
My initial reaction is that we are here to play chess, not to get as high
a rating as possible, and to promote ourselves by timeout when we
might not have won the game naturally is fooling ourselves. But you
are right that, if you exceed a timeout it is your own fault, if an easy
mistake, that you miscounted.
I think the point on racist comment is that, in many countries, a
person is free to voice their view, even if it is seen as wrong by the
majority... not that action on such views would be tolerated.
As with any rule people can take advantage or be accused of taking
advantage; what the "moral" truth is depends on the individuals point
of view.
Cheating? No. But, considering that 3 days is the shortest possible
timeout, and the majority of games have a longer one, and
considering that the game in question was started by the player who
claimed the timeout, I think that it is somewhat unsportsmanlike
behavior.
I claim timeouts, but I don't start games with three day timeouts,
and if I did I would be much more hesitant to claim a timeout than in
a seven-day game. This seems like basic manners to me.
This problem will be remedied when RHP puts in some sort of early
warning system for the player who is approaching the time limit.
Are you baiting me or are you just dense?
You claim that paulisfree2b had a right to timeout bagger. I agreed
with you. But my claim was not that paulisfree2b didn't have a right to
do what he did, rather, I claimed it was lame to do as he did. The
analogy with the hypothetical racist is supposed to help bring out the
distinction between what one has a right to do and what one ought to
do. The racist has the right to utter slurs, because people (in the U.S.
at least) have the right to free speech. But, of course, one ought not
utter racist slurs. So, one can act in accord with one's rights and still
act in a way deserving of censure. Paulisfree2b acted in accord with
his rights, and yet acted in a way deserving of censure. The censure
is deserved becasue he was being unsportmanlike. He was
unsposrtsmanlike because 1) he challenged bagger to a 3-day tm
game even though he almost certainly read bagger's profile and thus
was aware that bagger preferred 14-day tm games 2) they had just
started the game, and in all probablility paulisfree2b knew bagger had
neither forgot about nor abandoned the game, and 3) paulisfree2b
did not do bagger the courtesy of sending him a reminder.
Please try to follow the argument, print the post if necessary.
Yes, I was baiting you to a degree. However I still contend that your effort to assign nefarious
motives for Paulisfree2b's behavior are without basis. On what grounds can you claim that he
hatched a diabolical plot to claim an easy timeout victory? The only evidence is that Bagger prefers
14 day timeouts but went ahead and accepted a three day timeout challenge. The only
demonstrable action that ensued is that Bagger failed to live up to the requirements of that
challenge. Trying to postulate what Paulisfree2b's motives may have been are pure conjecture and,
in my mind, totally irrelevant. As you concede that Paulisfree2b acted within his rights, trying to
assign fault on him for exercising that right is a waste of time. The only motive worth examining is
why Bagger went ahead and accepted a three day timeout challenge and then felt he could flaunt
its requirements with impunity. Although most people would have granted an inattentive opponent
like Bagger a little extra time, they are not required to do so and should not have to justify their
motives if they do not.
As someone who has probably played against paulisfree more than
anyone (22 times) I'd just like to make the following points:
1. He seems to be very keen on playing lots of chess and not hanging
around. He has even suggested other sites to play 'live'.
2. He was getting very frustrated with the game limit as a non
subscriber and I encouraged him to subscribe - which he has now done!
3. Until we get some sort of challenge filter or ability to see straight
away what a game's timeout is I don't think we can be too harsh on
people who are only following the instructions they see on the screen.
They don't get any advice about checking people's profile first - all
they see is a message saying that the person they have challenged
may delete the game. So when their opponent continues with the
game they must surely assume that they have accepted the timeout
terms of the challenge.
4. Paulisfree2b actually chose me to challenge as soon as he'd got his
new star. He was really excited about it. Unfortunately, I noticed that
the timeout was 3 days so I deleted the game and went to challenge
him myself at 14 days. I was unable to do so as he was over the
game limit he'd set and I felt pretty bad because I had been unable
to welcome him as a fellow pawnstar.
5. After reading this thread I have tried, this time successfully, to
challenge him and I have given him some tips about checking profiles
before challenging etc. I have also welcomed him to RedHot Pawn as
a subscriber.
Rhymester
I had the same thing happen to me wirth paulisfree2b. In fact, my
only timeout in 500+ games. I have become diligent at checking the
timeout. Last challange from him was 3 days and we restarted it as 7
days.
I don't begrudge anyone claiming a timeout for a game that I accept -
it was my mistake. My problem with 3 day TOs is that I may only
really have 2 days to make a move - depending on when the last
move is made and when I wake up.
Don't believe it is sporting though after only 3-4 moves.
Bagger - it has been awhile since we've played. Should startup
another round.
david
Hello there,
* This reply is intended to be a general response to all related posts
* and is not just a reply to Bagger's small post.
Here goes...
1. I love this website and in time am going to become a major
contributor to the feature ideas etc.
2. I love playing chess and lots of it, even though my girlfriend is not
always pleased to see me staring at this chess website so much!
3. Yes, I claim timeouts when they occur.
4. There is no difference between claiming a 3 or 7 day timeout, it is
the same principle in the end.
5. I typically request 3 day timeouts since it limits my chess
experience - and decreases my concentraton and fun - if the
enemy does not move at least once in 72hrs.
6. Sporting behaviour is relative to the individual. Please do not get
upset with me just because my subjective perspective differes from
your own. I do not try force others to beahave 'my way'.
7. What's right for me is not necessarily right for you, and vice versa.
8. Read my profile, I have edited it to reflect my stance on playing
chess here - just to appease those people who cannot take
responsibility into their own hands when it comes to eirther moving
on time, or determining if they want to accept 3 day TO's or not.
** Recently: two players I matched with 3 day TO, requeseted I cancel
the game, and rematch using 7 day. I obliged them, since I was keen
to play them and alter my preferred TO period. I am reasonable after
all. If you do not like 3 day TO period when I match you, then simply
request 7 and I will oblige you if I am keen to play you.
* Often, I match people based on their rating, without bothering to
even read their profile (and hear about their TO preference).
* If I wanted just chat and making new buddies, I would be on an IRC
chatline.... reading profiles and chatting.
* I do not engage in big chats with all my opponents here, just some
that seem to hit it off with my chirps....
*** Ulitimately, I agree that the website needs a setting for min TO
accepted by a challenger to let some people be protected from their
lack of proper evaluation of a challenge.
* I am not in the wrong here.
I place myself under CONSIDERABLE PRESSURE with these 3 day
timeouts- LOTS OF PRESSURE!!! I have a life after all, with gf and
busy job, and friends etc, and it is tough for me to always force 30
odd game moves every 3 days...
I run the risk of getting time outs myself!!!!
So, I carefully consider how many 3 days timeouts I can realistically
handle at a time, the rest I make longer..
People:
Take responsibility for your games here, do not blame others for
holding you to the rules you abide with.
As for emailing people to warn them about timeout occuring....
If you are playing 50 games here, and you are AWARE that 1 of them
is a three day timeout....... do the maths!!! Then you know you HAVE
to check the website at least every THREE days!!!
I am cool dude and hope to enjoy games with lots of you chess
buddies in da future.
I hope nobody here is going to take this stance too personally and
stop paying me or become an ardent slagger of my name, cause that
would not be nice now would it?
We are all entitled to our opinions, yet we are all bound by a set of
common rules when we play chess - such as 'touch move' in OTB
chess. Chess without abiding to the rules is not chess after all.
I would appreciate a short response from my antagonists to indicate
either understanding, agreement, or denial.
CHECKMATE :-)
The only thing is that with a three day timeout, it is pretty likely that
an opponent who fails to move has done so because he is unaware of
the (unusually short) timeout period, not because he has knowingly
gone over it. It seems a bit harsh to give them a loss for being
unaware of it, especially as the current design of the site makes it
very easy for the timeout to go unnoticed.
And I'd have to disagree that "sporting behavior is relative to the
individual". If there isn't some common standard then the term has
no meaning.