opponent is pretending to be on holiday

Originally posted by trev33
don't you think people who pay to use the site should have extra features than non paying users?

Sure, but I don't think they should get extra features that give them an advantage within a game. Effectively, if a non-sub and a sub play a game, they play with different time controls. As a subscriber, I want to play fair games.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
That old comparison of yours is not the same sort of situation at all, and you know it. 😛

The football pitch I play on is on a steep hill. As it is our home ground we play from the top for the whole game; naturally we win many games we would have lost if the field was level.
We don't care that it's unfair. We like to think we're better players whatever methods we use to win. 😏

It's more like a poor team complaining that they couldn't afford shinguards and good shoes and thus lost to a more affluent team.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It's more like a poor team complaining that they couldn't afford shinguards and good shoes and thus lost to a more affluent team.

My god your right!

Fair play has nothing to do with it. It's just about someone feeling superior to another because they have paid money to an internet chess server. Whoopee-do!!!

RHP should stop neglecting the needs of subscribers and give them an extra Knight at the start of every game vs. a non-payer!🙄😉

Originally posted by peacedog
My god your right!

Fair play has nothing to do with it. It's just about someone feeling superior to another because they have paid money to an internet chess server. Whoopee-do!!!

RHP should stop neglecting the needs of subscribers and give them an extra Knight at the start of every game vs. a non-payer!🙄😉

No, the whole point of a non-sub account is to try before buying. Much like other similar business models, this means that you don't get full functionality in some respects.

Personally, I would not mind if non-subs were allowed to have vacation, but let's be practical here. Some popular chess servers, like ICC, don't even allow freeloaders on anymore. The pay site/server model is winning the battle of the business models.

I came from another corr. site that had excellent core functionality, but it was perhaps TOO generous with freeloaders. Net result? Lots of freeloaders, few paying members, and SLOOOOW server performance as the site grew larger. So, despite the fact that I liked their interface better than RHP's in some respects, I ended up here because this site is able to convince enough people to pay the money so they can do things like upgrade to better servers as the site grows.

......

As for the fairness argument, what's next?
"I don't get enough practice in my favorite openings! I can only play six games at once, while subs have an unlimited number! I'm losing because of my inferior opening knowledge! It's not fair!!"
"I can't get matches against good players, because they prefer to play tourneys, and I can't! My game is not improving as fast as it should because of this! It's not fair!"
etc. etc.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, the whole point of a non-sub account is to try before buying. Much like other similar business models, this means that you don't get full functionality in some respects.

Personally, I would not mind if non-subs were allowed to have vacation, but let's be practical here. Some popular chess servers, like ICC, don't even allow freeloaders on anymore. ...[text shortened]... is not improving as fast as it should because of this! It's not fair!"
etc. etc.

I agree with you. The non-subscriber thing is just a hook to try to bring in more paying members. A good marketing strategy as I may soon become one of the paying elite.

Yeh, restrict the options a non-subscriber has to give them an incentive to pay up. But don’t give subscribers more time on the clock. That gives them an unfair advantage(I admit a very small one) which goes against fair play. A better idea would be to have a trial period of maybe 3 months or so. Or even reduce the number of simultaneous games allowed. Almost anything is preferable to unbalancing the game in favour of anyone.

Anyway, I’m sure you already know that, so I wont say anymore on the subject…………until I become a paying member and demand that my Queen becomes bullet-proof vs. non-subscribers! 😉

Originally posted by SwissGambit


As for the fairness argument, what's next?
"I don't get enough practice in my favorite openings! I can only play six games at once, while subs have an unlimited number! I'm losing because of my inferior opening knowledge! It's not fair!!"
"I can't get matches against good players, because they prefer to play tourneys, and I can't! My game is not improving as fast as it should because of this! It's not fair!"
etc. etc.

Or a different version... "My opponent isn't paying, so why is xe allowed to play xyr favourite opening even if I, a paying member, don't like it?" "I want an extra pawn for my money!" "People who don't pay shouldn't be allowed to win against subscribers!" "My non-sub scum opponent didn't pay a penny, but gets as many rating points for a win as a paying member! It's not fair!"

Originally posted by Nordlys
Sure, but I don't think they should get extra features that give them an advantage within a game. Effectively, if a non-sub and a sub play a game, they play with different time controls. As a subscriber, I want to play fair games.

look at it this way.

player A is a non sub and A goes on holidays or can't play for a couple of weeks, player A gets timed out on all 6 of its games and loses 100 rating points. when A gets back A starts 6 new games, against both sub and non sun people....soon A wins a few and gets A's rating back. no harm done to anyway, yes A losing his rating points but A gets them back without hurting any other player by more than a few extra points. no big deal.

player B is a sub and B has 100+ games going before B goes on holiday or can't play for a couple of weeks. in the current system B can go on vacation and not time out in any games. but if you take that away B would lose 100s of rating points and fall well below B's real ability. not taking into account other members of whatever clan B is in that had lost games and the extra work they now have to do to for their clan. player B has to get the rating back.....B decides B doesn't want to beat up on players around B's new rating to get the rating back, B wants to play people at around B's level and sure enough as B starts to get B's rating back B is accused of sandbagging by everyone who B beats, including a lot of non subs.

even though B has decided only to play a fair game his clan leader (we'll call him Mctayto) has other ideas and starts to put B up against people B could beat in B's sleep resulting in further flack for B....all B wanted to do was go away for a couple of weeks and now B is getting harassed members calling B a cheat.

do you want to do this to B and the people who will lose points as B gets B's rating back?

Originally posted by trev33
look at it this way.

player A is a non sub and A goes on holidays or can't play for a couple of weeks, player A gets timed out on all 6 of its games and loses 100 rating points. when A gets back A starts 6 new games, against both sub and non sun people....soon A wins a few and gets A's rating back. no harm done to anyway, yes A losing his rating points but ...[text shortened]... u want to do this to B and the people who will lose points as B gets B's rating back?

This 'B' you speak of ... it wouldn't be '3b' by any chance? because he IS a cheat!

Originally posted by orangutan
This 'B' you speak of ... it wouldn't be '3b' by any chance? because he IS a cheat!

no, 3b is B's gay cousin.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
"No, the whole point of a non-sub account is to try before buying"

There is no time limit on non-subscriber accounts so I think that disproves that theory.

...I'm losing because of my inferior opening knowledge!

Subscibers are not automatically better players than non-subscribers because they are subscibers or do you imagine they are? LoL

If non subs wanted to play tournaments they would pay to play them. We shouldn't have to be at a disadvantage in the game itself

As for the fairness argument, what's next?
"I don't get enough practice in my favorite openings! I can only play six games at once, while subs have an unlimited number! I'm losing because of my inferior opening knowledge! It's not fair!!"
"I can't get matches against good players, because they prefer to play tourneys, and I can't! My game is not improving as fast as it should because of this!

Absolute rubbish! We want a fair game and nothing more.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It's more like a poor team complaining that they couldn't afford shinguards and good shoes and thus lost to a more affluent team.

I'm glad you agree the advantage wrongly goes to those who pay for it.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I'm glad you agree the advantage wrongly goes to those who pay for it.

how are you at a disadvantage by this?

last time i looked there's 16 pieces on each side and everyone gets to make one turn after the other. regardless on the length in between play.

i went away last weekend and made no moves for 4 or 5 days....i was playing 2 1/0 games against non subs at the time...did they complain when the flag went up and they didn't have a move for a while? no, most non subs are not babbies and are well aware that subs get a better deal. hence, they've paid for it.

stop crying, accept it for what it is and it it bothers you THAT much just don't play subs.

Originally posted by trev33
how are you at a disadvantage by this?

last time i looked there's 16 pieces on each side and everyone gets to make one turn after the other. regardless on the length in between play.

i went away last weekend and made no moves for 4 or 5 days....i was playing 2 1/0 games against non subs at the time...did they complain when the flag went up and they did
stop crying, accept it for what it is and it it bothers you THAT much just don't play subs.

Firstly, I have said on numerous occasions that it DOESN'T really bother me personally.
I already do only play people I know, or trust to play by the same rules as myself.

What is amazing to me is how some subscribers seem to believe differing timebanks makes for a fair game. If you can't see how a longer timebank for one player could be an advantage then I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

By the way, I'm not crying - I'm merely pointing out a big fault in the system.
When I was a subscriber I said the same, and I never used it at all even when I was on a real vacation.

Most non-subs don't want extra features, just fair play.

The ideal solution would be to have a turn on/turn off choice at the start of the game, like the option for rated or non rated.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Or a different version... "My opponent isn't paying, so why is xe allowed to play xyr favourite opening even if I, a paying member, don't like it?" "I want an extra pawn for my money!" "People who don't pay shouldn't be allowed to win against subscribers!" "My non-sub scum opponent didn't pay a penny, but gets as many rating points for a win as a paying member! It's not fair!"

Point being, "fairness" is somewhat subjective in nature. I certainly don't view the lack of vacation to be as big a disadvantage as giving Knight odds, as another poster seemed to suggest - particularly when subscribers, like me, tend to use their vacation in parallel with their regular time. I think the cries of 'vacation abuse!' are greatly exaggerated, as well as the claims of unfairness.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]"No, the whole point of a non-sub account is to try before buying"

There is no time limit on non-subscriber accounts so I think that disproves that theory.

...I'm losing because of my inferior opening knowledge!

Subscibers are not automatically better players than non-subscribers because ...[text shortened]... uld because of this![/b]

Absolute rubbish! We want a fair game and nothing more.[/b]

There is no time limit on non-subscriber accounts so I think that disproves that theory.

Well, your thinking could be a bit broader.
For example, I was here for awhile as a non-sub; certainly more than the 3 months that some have proposed as a trial period, and yet they got my sub $$ eventually,

Subscibers are not automatically better players than non-subscribers because they are subscibers or do you imagine they are? LoL

Try re-reading my post please.

Absolute rubbish! We want a fair game and nothing more.

Why are those arguments invalid, and yet your vacation argument is? They all seem rather trivial to me. Technically, they all describe 'unfair' conditions, and all directly linked to the privileges that only subs get - I just don't see much evidence that the unfairness is beyond a trivial level.