It is fully understandable, that free members face game count limits, can't play tournaments etc. But why are they disallowed to take vacation? It simply looks like somebody wanted take some spare rating points from freebies and give them to full members.
Please consider allowing free members to take some vacations (maybe less than full members). Or at least give some noticeable warning (having played on quite a few sites I never expected such a thing may happen, wouldn't start those games I have in progress).
This has been the most contentious "feature" of RHP. As a subscriber and one of the most active players, I completely understand your frustration. The proper thing to do is to Send Feedback as a site suggestion using the link in the bottom middle of every page.
Originally posted by coquette This has been the most contentious "feature" of RHP. As a subscriber and one of the most active players, I completely understand your frustration. The proper thing to do is to Send Feedback as a site suggestion using the link in the bottom middle of every page.
Originally posted by Mekk It is fully understandable, that free members face game count limits, can't play tournaments etc. But why are they disallowed to take vacation? It simply looks like somebody wanted take some spare rating points from freebies and give them to full members.
Please consider allowing free members to take some vacations (maybe less than full members). Or at least ...[text shortened]... ites I never expected such a thing may happen, wouldn't start those games I have in progress).
I agree wholeheartedly - it's the biggest fault with this site.
Why should it be possible to pay for more time against your opponent - it leads to an extemely unfair situation in my opinion.
Originally posted by Mekk It is fully understandable, that free members face game count limits, can't play tournaments etc. But why are they disallowed to take vacation? It simply looks like somebody wanted take some spare rating points from freebies and give them to full members.
Please consider allowing free members to take some vacations (maybe less than full members). Or at least ...[text shortened]... ites I never expected such a thing may happen, wouldn't start those games I have in progress).
I agree that this feature should be available to nonsubs as well, even if they only get a week. I'm playing someone who I think took off on a space shuttle. No clue when he'll be back, no message on his profile or in-game messages...
What I did as a non-sub, was get games with other non-subs it worked out quite well !
Or have the time set for 24 hr. moves only 1day 0 timebank...You are then assured of at least one move a day, and people who play that time, usually move several times a day.
Originally posted by Very Rusty What I did as a non-sub, was get games with other non-subs it worked out quite well !
Or have the time set for 24 hr. moves only 1day 0 timebank...You are then assured of at least one move a day, and people who play that time, usually move several times a day.
not true. every sub can take vacation, no matter what time setting. the non-sub sits with their 6 game max limit frozen for some indeterminant time. how many potential future subs are lost during a month of checking in with no way of knowing when the player/s will return?
planned return dates should be posted and non-subs should be granted vacation privileges. no harm, no foul.
Originally posted by coquette not true. every sub can take vacation, no matter what time setting. the non-sub sits with their 6 game max limit frozen for some indeterminant time. how many potential future subs are lost during a month of checking in with no way of knowing when the player/s will return?
planned return dates should be posted and non-subs should be granted vacation privileges. no harm, no foul.
Leave the vacation system as is - after all, there need to be some incentives to subscribe - but if a game is wearing a vacation flag, it should not count in the non-sub's 6-game limit. OK, when the vacationer returns the non-sub may have 7 or 8 games for a short while, but that will resolve itself quickly.
The non-subs are here for free. They are given things for free. They are able to play chess for free and improve for free. If they don't like what is given to them for free, why are they here?
RHP gives them things for free, but is it entirely for free? RHP gets money from advertisments so by reading the ads, and sometimes even click them, RHP gets money from the non-subs. One of the reasons I became a sub was to get rid of the ads.
If RHP doesn't give the non-subs anything they wouldn't be here. And there wouldn't be any subs either, because the non-subs become subs eventually. In fact, there wouldn't be any RHP at all without the non-subs.
If we treat the non-subs unfair, if we treat the non-subs as lower beings, if we scare them off RHP, then after a while we wouldn't have any RHP, would we?
So I say - treat them fair. Let them have som, but not all, of the wonderful things that we, the subs, pay for. Let them have things for free, because one day they will become a sub. And then we will be equal.
Vacancy is one thing. Let them have vacancies, as the subs do. For fairness. For them to feel they are treated fairly. Give them vacancies.
Let me put things in the correct context. I understand and accept that the site owners has right to limit free members rights. Every chess site makes some decision here, balancing the need to attract enough players and the need to earn money. Would RHP decide some day that freebies are not allowed to play rated games at all, I would understand without complains (although, likely, leave)
But forbidding vacation is similar to forbidding a draw claim, or counting stalemate as loos, or forcing to play with some material down. It is not about forbidding a player some privileges, but it simply creates unfair game situation in the games which are played.
Originally posted by Mekk Let me put things in the correct context. I understand and accept that the site owners has right to limit free members rights. Every chess site makes some decision here, balancing the need to attract enough players and the need to earn money. Would RHP decide some day that freebies are not allowed to play rated games at all, I would understand without complains ...[text shortened]... ayer some privileges, but it simply creates unfair game situation in the games which are played.
You pays your money, you takes your choice....or not.
Originally posted by coquette not true. every sub can take vacation, no matter what time setting. the non-sub sits with their 6 game max limit frozen for some indeterminant time. how many potential future subs are lost during a month of checking in with no way of knowing when the player/s will return?
planned return dates should be posted and non-subs should be granted vacation privileges. no harm, no foul.
Perhaps I didn't word that correctly...I meant just play non-subs...Then set for 1 day and 0 time bank! Then you will usually get more moves than the 1 per day...At least this is what I found as a non-sub.
Well, I plan something completely different - I will only play games with 21 days of timebank, for blitz freechess is better choice. Pity I did not know about this earlier, so I am to loose currently played games :-(
Vacation is only for subscribers??? Yeah, great...
16 Jun '08 19:091 edit
Back to Top