Instead of an automatic block on non-suscribers playing more than six games, why not have a policy of trusting us to be honest and not creating more than six games.
Say like a trial period, to see if the system is abused.
Originally posted by celticcountry Instead of an automatic block on non-suscribers playing more than six games, why not have a policy of trusting us to be honest and not creating more than six games.
Say like a trial period, to see if the system is abused.
It is abused already.
Keep the 6 games limit and block every attempt from non-subs to exceed this limit. It's good as it is.
If the limit is raised I'll resume being a non sub.
Originally posted by celticcountry Instead of an automatic block on non-suscribers playing more than six games, why not have a policy of trusting us to be honest and not creating more than six games.
Say like a trial period, to see if the system is abused.
That is kind of like putting a kid in a candy store over night, and telling him not to eat any candy 😲 😲 😲
Originally posted by FabianFnas It is abused already.
Keep the 6 games limit and block every attempt from non-subs to exceed this limit. It's good as it is.
If the limit is raised I'll resume being a non sub.
oh..meet half way..what about 6 games..and say...10 moves of a 7th game ?
Originally posted by celticcountry Instead of an automatic block on non-suscribers playing more than six games, why not have a policy of trusting us to be honest and not creating more than six games.
Say like a trial period, to see if the system is abused.
How would you know there's a block if you hadn't tried to go over the limit?
Originally posted by celticcountry Instead of an automatic block on non-suscribers playing more than six games, why not have a policy of trusting us to be honest and not creating more than six games.
Say like a trial period, to see if the system is abused.
Presumably the non-subscribing fellows will create multiple identities if they are so desparate for games. Yes I know it's against the rules but are the non-subs worth policing? They won't interfere with the clans and tournaments will they?
As for the original suggestion, celticcountry, are you having a laugh?
that works out well for you then, which is good. but for other people it gets annoying when you have the max number of games in progress but no one actually moves on these for extended periods of time leaving you unable to play at all (has happened to me many times already). i know this is the whole point of subscribing and everything because the free acounts are supposed to just be a trial but i think this particular part is overly restrictive really and it is my opinion (as well as probably that of many other non-subscribers) that the limit should be higher, though not limitless.......and i know that most subscribers that are reading this will probably be thinking that we should be restricted to less, like 2 games or something but it really doesnt affect you in any way that i can see......well thats my complaint for the night over.
Originally posted by Joshua B that works out well for you then, which is good. but for other people it gets annoying when you have the max number of games in progress but no one actually moves on these for extended periods of time leaving you unable to play at all (has happened to me many times already). i know this is the whole point of subscribing and everything because the free acou ...[text shortened]... lly doesnt affect you in any way that i can see......well thats my complaint for the night over.
What time settings do you use - maybe you could try the lower ones?
eg. 1 day timeout/zero timebank
26 Jan '07 22:31
Let Honesty reign
Back to Top