Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Standard member howitzer
    rockling
    14 Feb '05 14:39
    It would be useful to restrict open invites not just by rating but also by subscription status. I find subscribers are genearly keener, less likely to cheat(!), and nicer all in all. For this reason I would like to restrict my open invitations to subscribers.
  2. Standard member Blobby
    You Cheeky
    14 Feb '05 14:41
    Originally posted by howitzer
    It would be useful to restrict open invites not just by rating but also by subscription status. I find subscribers are genearly keener, less likely to cheat(!), and nicer all in all. For this reason I would like to restrict my open invitations to subscribers.
    if you get a non-subscriber then just delete the game and put up another open invite
  3. Standard member howitzer
    rockling
    14 Feb '05 14:47
    Originally posted by Blobby
    if you get a non-subscriber then just delete the game and put up another open invite
    This is what I do at the moment, but almost 30-40% of my invites are taken by non-subscibers which means a lot of unhappy folk who suddenly find their game deleted.
  4. Standard member Phlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    14 Feb '05 16:23 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by howitzer
    This is what I do at the moment, but almost 30-40% of my invites are taken by non-subscibers which means a lot of unhappy folk who suddenly find their game deleted.
    suddenly find their game deleted? Did you have it in the game title that you didn't want to play them? Don't worry about them, if they are dumb enough to click into a game they have no right to play considering the title.

    P
  5. Standard member howitzer
    rockling
    14 Feb '05 16:54
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    suddenly find their game deleted? Did you have it in the game title that you didn't want to play them? Don't worry about them, if they are dumb enough to click into a game they have no right to play considering the title.

    P
    I always name the game "Pawn Stars Only" or somesuch.
    It's also just a bit annoying to constantly delete the games. It's as if you were unable to 'limit' an open invite by rating and could only name it- lots of people outside of the range would ignore the name or just try their luck.

  6. Standard member MCA
    TokerSmurf
    14 Feb '05 23:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by howitzer
    It would be useful to restrict open invites not just by rating but also by subscription status. I find subscribers are genearly keener, less likely to cheat(!), and nicer all in all. For this reason I would like to restrict my open invitations to subscribers.
    I'm a non-subscriber - yet i am quite keen (play multiple moves every single day of the week) - dont cheat (unless you count knowing the rules) and consider myself to be quite nice (in most respects anyway)

    Why delete a game with someone of equal (or at least similar) rating simply because the opponent doesnt have a star by his name??

    Does it really matter THAT much??

    Ok I understand that you have put "Pawn Stars Only" in the title and yes they are stupid for joining the game regardless, but why do you discriminate at all??

    (",)
  7. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    16 Feb '05 03:56
    Originally posted by howitzer
    It would be useful to restrict open invites not just by rating but also by subscription status. I find subscribers are genearly keener, less likely to cheat(!), and nicer all in all. For this reason I would like to restrict my open invitations to subscribers.
    On the flip side i find non-subscribers generally have inflated ratings. I'll happily play a 1700 non pawn star as i'll bet money their only 1500 in reality.
  8. Standard member howitzer
    rockling
    16 Feb '05 10:05
    On the flip side i find non-subscribers generally have inflated ratings. I'll happily play a 1700 non pawn star as i'll bet money their only 1500 in reality.
    Another good one. Open Invites are regularly taken by provisional players (who I don't want to mess about!) who have provisional ratings - not the most accurate!