04 Apr 09
A recent mass resignation by a long-term member led to this exchange:
Originally posted by Shamash:
the post: now that brings up an interesting issue.
What Are some effective ways players have taken a break from games here?
Is there a way of taking a break from the site that works (even for non-subscribers) and is less self-destructive than resigning on all boards?
Am wondering, how have others handled this?
a reponse:
It usually comes down to either resigning all games, or letting them time out. If vacation time isn't enough of a break, there is no other alternative.
==============suggestion: =============================
Let's have a feature that in specific circumstances of need allows a player (perhaps a fellow Club member) of similar strength to take over the games of a player who must take a break.
Then we would no longer see, as we just did, an overnight drop in ranking of a tireless competitor who had worked hard in building up his ranking, from #18 to #5,666.
So I suggest finding and making available a fair way to substitute a comparable opponent for a player who must take a break.
*
05 Apr 09
Originally posted by ShamashI think that would be fraud as defined by the tos.
A recent mass resignation by a long-term member led to this exchange:
Originally posted by Shamash:
the post: now that brings up an interesting issue.
What Are some effective ways players have taken a break from games here?
Is there a way of taking a break from the site that works (even for non-subscribers) and is less self-destructive than ...[text shortened]... able a fair way to substitute a comparable opponent for a player who must take a break.
*
05 Apr 09
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensNaturally I mean structuring this option within the bounds of fair play. . .
I think that would be fraud as defined by the tos.
. . . it's what a businessman does when he takes a government position and puts all his public stocks into a blind trust for someone else to execute trades.
. . . it's what team members do in a relay race
it is Not suggesting moves during the play of a game
Nor would it allow for a Consult.
it is completely replacing a player and completely taking over the game
I thought of it only on seeing the pain Korch was going through and thought there must be a more humane way of handling this type of situation
especially for a popular and respected leader of a clan who has so many well-wishers
that's all
if it won't fly, it won't fly
05 Apr 09
Originally posted by ShamashToo many logistical problems with this idea.
Naturally I mean structuring this option within the bounds of fair play. . .
. . . it's what a businessman does when he takes a government position and puts all his public stocks into a blind trust for someone else to execute trades.
. . . it's what team members do in a relay race
it is Not suggesting moves during the play of a game
Nor would ...[text shortened]... ader of a clan who has so many well-wishers
that's all
if it won't fly, it won't fly
For one, how do you rate a game with a substituted player?
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes, that ratings issue certainly looks like a deal-breaker.
Too many logistical problems with this idea.
For one, how do you rate a game with a substituted player?
I can see how you feel.
Yet -- let me ask you -- an option like this -- would it ever have benefitted you or members you know?
Let's see, you joined two years ago, now -- I was not here, then -- was there a period in 2007, say, when you or a fellow clan member or a friend might have benefitted from an option to take a break instead of resigning a great big mass of games?
By the way, I would only see such an option working if the opponent agreed to it at the onset of the game.
Anyway, let someone else champion this idea if it has merit. A subscriber, a member who has been here for years not months, and someone who plays large numbers of games at one time.
06 Apr 09
Originally posted by ShamashI have been advocating rating floors here for some time now. The idea is to prevent a rating from dropping below a certain point. In Korch's case, he has maintained a 2200+ rating over many games, so we'd round down to the nearest hundred [2200], then subtract 200 points. His rating floor would be at 2000, meaning that his rating would not be allowed to drop below 2000 no matter how many games he lost.
Yes, that ratings issue certainly looks like a deal-breaker.
I can see how you feel.
Yet -- let me ask you -- an option like this -- would it ever have benefitted you or members you know?
Let's see, you joined two years ago, now -- I was not here, then -- was there a period in 2007, say, when you or a fellow clan member or a friend might have ...[text shortened]... o has been here for years not months, and someone who plays large numbers of games at one time.
This way, if he ever came back, he'd still be rated 2000, which is much much closer to his true ability than 1400.
07 Apr 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitgreat idea, you have my support
I have been advocating rating floors here for some time now. The idea is to prevent a rating from dropping below a certain point. In Korch's case, he has maintained a 2200+ rating over many games, so we'd round down to the nearest hundred [2200], then subtract 200 points. His rating floor would be at 2000, meaning that his rating would not be allowed to ...[text shortened]... came back, he'd still be rated 2000, which is much much closer to his true ability than 1400.
07 Apr 09
Originally posted by ShamashBad idea.
A recent mass resignation by a long-term member led to this exchange:
Originally posted by Shamash:
the post: now that brings up an interesting issue.
What Are some effective ways players have taken a break from games here?
Is there a way of taking a break from the site that works (even for non-subscribers) and is less self-destructive than ...[text shortened]... able a fair way to substitute a comparable opponent for a player who must take a break.
*
Everyone has a different style of play and it would be unfair on the opponent who suddenly finds himself against a totally different style of play and/or a possibly much stronger opponent.
How do you define comparable?
You could have two players rated around 1800, one only plays those at our around the 1750+ level, the other regularly beats up on 1400 rated players.
Are they comparable as their ratings are similar?