vacation flag and limits on games

it's all been said before, but some real evidence is coming in now. last time it was marko krale . . .a very good 1700ish player who dropped down way low because he couldn't keep his game load up

now, it's heng, a very good 1700ish player who's now at 1040ish. he can't keep up with his game load and tourney's and matches are hung up, all delayed for 36 days while his vacation flag was flying and he was still moving

heng's a good guy. plays fine. apologetic. no problems there. but the tournaments are still hanging and his rating has fallen off a cliff.

who cares? i sure do. i may be beaten in 20 or so games by a guy who's really 1700 but is going to beat me with a 1000 or 900 or 800 rating . . .it is likely to happen.

Originally posted by coquette
it's all been said before, but some real evidence is coming in now. last time it was marko krale . . .a very good 1700ish player who dropped down way low because he couldn't keep his game load up

now, it's heng, a very good 1700ish player who's now at 1040ish. he can't keep up with his game load and tourney's and matches are hung up, all delayed for 36 d ...[text shortened]... 00 but is going to beat me with a 1000 or 900 or 800 rating . . .it is likely to happen.

Come on...hasn't this been said enough times?

Your rating will bounce back if it currently reflects your true skill level.

'Nuff said.

Originally posted by wittywonka
...Your rating will bounce back if it currently reflects your true skill level.

Not f you regularly play people in that situation.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Not f you regularly play people in that situation.

The non-sub who doesn't play subs, supporting the limiting of the number of games a sub can play. I've seen it all now. 🙄

Question for cokette, exactly how many times has somebody come along like heng? Why are all of your site "improvement" ideas aimed at punishing thousands of players out of spite over the actions of 1 or 2?

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
The non-sub who doesn't play subs, supporting the limiting of the number of games a sub can play. I've seen it all now. 🙄

Question for cokette, exactly how many times has somebody come along like heng? Why are all of your site "improvement" ideas aimed at punishing thousands of players out of spite over the actions of 1 or 2?

D

Hey, that's MY LINE!

P-

Originally posted by Ragnorak
The non-sub who doesn't play subs, supporting the limiting of the number of games a sub can play. I've seen it all now. 🙄

Question for cokette, exactly how many times has somebody come along like heng? Why are all of your site "improvement" ideas aimed at punishing thousands of players out of spite over the actions of 1 or 2?

D

i have no interest in "punishment" and i have no idea where, in any thread i've posted, that i was implying any such thing, except maybe, in a few what i might have thought were obvious joke postings that i don't even recall at the moment but might have been posted . . .no, i am only posting an idea that i believe (1) would make the game as fair as possible from move #1, regardless of sub or non-sub status, (2) would make RHP more enjoyable and attractive by moving the games, matches, seiges, and tourneys along at a reasonable rate (don't bother arguing, there are just too many tournaments on hold waiting for heng to finish his one or two games still at move 30something, (3) is a reasonable notion that if you are "on vacation" then you are "on vacation" and if you are moving, then you aren't "on vacation", and (4) the information should be available to everyone (vacation movers pick when they will move, no one else can see their scheduled dates of return (oh yes, of course, this is meaningless non information . . so long as no one actually "playes the clock" . .. sure, no one ever does that . .. .

cheap accusations that attack rather than address the point are so . .. . well . . .cheap

What is your big deal with people moving while on vacation? Hasn't that already been addressed, too?

You currently have 150 games in progress. If a few players (or even a few dozen players) don't move in your games (generally because they're losing) and put up their vacation, so what? You've got a hundred other games, and you'll win those other games eventually.

Not to mention the fact that need not be repeated again. Those players are playing by the rules of the site.

If you don't like the vacation system that much, then why don't you play non-subs only?

This is just trying to protect people from themselves as far as I see it.

There should be no limits on number of games for subscribers. If subs want to shoot themselves in their own foot like taking on thousands of games, they should be allowed to.

Different people can handle different number of games and I don't think it's up to RHP to dictate that to the paying subscribers of this site.

i'll make one last try . then i promise to drop this forever

This has NOTHING to do with punishment and NOTHING to do with MY games

This has EVERYTHING to do with RHP, tournaments, clan matches, seiges, and why people play chess

This has nothing to do with limiting games people register for (i've been up to 280 a couple of times (i never timed out and never vacationed - i could have signed up for a 1000 or 10,000 i suppose)

I am only making a humble suggestion (sorry for using a player by name to make the point, but he did the public forum apology in the tournaments forum himself) to improve RHP and to BALANCE the game for both players from the beginning

i can understand it if you disagree with me. i can understand it the site managers disagree. that's okay. i'm just making a suggestion. i might only ask that anyone who reads this consider the suggestion and possibly, if they have the maturity to do so, respond to the suggestion rather than make personal attacks that are meaningless distractions from the dialogue

Originally posted by coquette
i'll make one last try . then i promise to drop this forever

This has NOTHING to do with punishment and NOTHING to do with MY games

This has EVERYTHING to do with RHP, tournaments, clan matches, seiges, and why people play chess

This has nothing to do with limiting games people register for (i've been up to 280 a couple of times (i never timed out estion rather than make personal attacks that are meaningless distractions from the dialogue

Coquette,

First of all, people shouldn't resort to personal attacks, I certainly didn't intend anything in my post as such.

What I'm wondering is what is your specific suggestion? In your original post you didn't appear to make a specific suggestion other than the title of the thread saying "vacation and limits on games" - which implies that you are in fact suggesting a limit on games.

You say in this post that it isn't about limiting games. What is it then?

I'm sorry that I, with most people, saw your suggestion as being limiting games. I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but rereading your original post I don't see any concrete suggestion. I think this is part of the problem that you've seen with the replies you've gotten.

What is your suggestion to balance the game?

my apology right back to you . .i wasn't thinking it through when i wrote the title . . .but, (and this isn't a defense) the title is just that . .to call attention to the thread, so maybe it's no big deal or it is, but i was wrong

second, i didn't spell it all out in detail because it's all been said so many times . ..even by me, many times before

i just wanted to point out that (1) people use the vacation flag to take extra time (36 days per year) to play their games and that (2) non-subs don't have the same privileges, and (3) the rules of RHP let you pick your own time limits and how many games you can handle

so, the only real genuiine use of a vacation system that is fair is to let everyone use it equally, and to make it a real vacation system, or drop it . . it's just a suggestion, but my point was that we have some real clear examples of how it is hurting RHP - in my opinion - and these examples are only coming to light now . .because of certain players making it clear

i thank you for your response. i apologize if i sound "shrill" about this. like i said . .i really PROMISE to drop it and never post on this topic again . .. . i mean it

Originally posted by coquette
it's all been said before, but some real evidence is coming in now. last time it was marko krale . . .a very good 1700ish player who dropped down way low because he couldn't keep his game load up

now, it's heng, a very good 1700ish player who's now at 1040ish. he can't keep up with his game load and tourney's and matches are hung up, all delayed for 36 d ...[text shortened]... 00 but is going to beat me with a 1000 or 900 or 800 rating . . .it is likely to happen.

Sorry Cokette, but you're not making any sense whatsoever.

You rail against people getting overloaded with games, and then taking huge numbers of TO's in the same post that you want to get rid of the vacation system, which protects against these types of incidences? Have you thought this through, because if you get rid of vacation, then you will take more hits like the one you are taking against heng.

You want to place a limit on the number of games a sub may have, and then you don't? What's that about?

You state that heng is holding up all of the tournaments which you are taking part with him, when the evidence clearly shows this to be false.

Do you even know what you want? As far as I can see, the only things you have clearly stated that you want are
a) limits on the number of games a sub may have
b) the ability to time out players on vacation

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Sorry Cokette, but you're not making any sense whatsoever.

You rail against people getting overloaded with games, and then taking huge numbers of TO's in the same post that you want to get rid of the vacation system, which protects against these types of incidences? Have you thought this through, because if you get rid of vacation, then you will take mo s on the number of games a sub may have
b) the ability to time out players on vacation

D

no, none of what you have interpreted . . just the opposite on all points and you will have it right

some players are holding up tournaments . .one so far apologized for that . .i needn't point out who again . .

i don't want to limit the number of games . .i am sorry that i implied that, i didn't mean to

i don't want to time people out who are on vacation

i have thought it through

i don't even mean to make such a big deal about it all

i would actually like to play a fair game of chess rather than have an advantage over a non-sub, i just prefer a level playing field for chess (but if you want to give me queen odds and the three first moves, i suppose i'll take the game . . . if i think you are good enough to handle it)

i'm not going to bother to explain here how the vacation system could be improved to be made a real vacation system and fair (that's all been discussed to death in other threads), i'm not ever going to suggest that the number of games be limited .. .if you want to play 2000 games at one time, go for it

however, i do suggest that RHP try to make the site as fair and fun and friendly as possible . . . and enough people have pointed out that the vacation system is not equal and it's not a vacation system .. . people (no names this time) are using it to avoid being timed out while they continue to play their games - again, no big deal - but the 36 days of delay in 20 tournaments with maybe 50 players in each one . .well . .lets' see . . 36 days X 20 tourneys X 50 players X 2 games (black and white) comes to . um . . . 72,000 delayed days of chess

i guess your right after all, no big deal (mathematicians: please don't flame me out, i'm so not good at math)

Originally posted by Ragnorak
The non-sub who doesn't play subs, supporting the limiting of the number of games a sub can play. I've seen it all now. 🙄

Hey Sherlock, how did you deduce that I was supporting anything from my statement of facts? 🙄





(waiting for you-know-who to say "elementary"]