1. Standard memberGatecrasher
    Whale watching
    33°36'S 26°53'E
    Joined
    05 Feb '04
    Moves
    41150
    31 Aug '06 02:414 edits
    We have just been asked to vote:

    "Would you be happy if players were immune from timeout while on vacation for a limited period (say 4 weeks)."

    The PM says our vote is requested and would be very much appreciated.

    There are only two choices. Yes and No.

    People vote "No" if they would be unhappy. They vote "Yes" if they are happy. Chances are a great many people are happy (regardless of the issue). Outcome "Yes"

    If a pollster or market researcher asked loaded questions like this they would be fired on the spot.

    So another vote at another time that asked this question:

    "Would you be happy if players were not immune from timeout while on vacation?" and it was requested in the same manner, under the same conditions, with the same "Yes" & "No" choices would also have a "Yes" outcome. Yes, on the whole the subscribers would be happy.

    Subscribers should not have been asked to vote about their happiness.

    Happiness is not the issue! They should have been asked a question about vacation timeouts. For example,

    "Should a player be immune from timeout while on vacation for a limited period (say 4 weeks)" with the options: Yes, No (The current situation), Not sure, Don't care.

    They could also have been directed to threads where this issue has been debated over and over again.

    Even better we could have had some alternative choices, "timeouts and the vacation period only", "Timeouts and timebanks (the current situation)", "Timeouts and a timebank top-up system" or "Timeouts plus timebanks plus a vacation period". (Right now we are being forced into the last choice only).

    Look at the other vote. People will vote for the status quo. Even if "No" had been suffixed with "(The current situation)" as in the other vote it would have received many, many more votes.

    This vote and its outcome is a sad, sorry, meaningless farce.

    My "site idea" is that it be declared null and void.
  2. Standard memberIM4Y2NV
    Dadohalic
    Finger tip talking.
    Joined
    31 Jul '06
    Moves
    29649
    31 Aug '06 03:18
    This is right!!!!


    "Would you be happy if players were immune from timeout while on vacation for a limited period (say 4 weeks)."

    The PM says our vote is requested and would be very much appreciated.

    There are only two choices. Yes and No.

    People vote "No" if they would be unhappy. They vote "Yes" if they are happy. Chances are a great many people are happy (regardless of the issue). Outcome "Yes"

    If a pollster or market researcher asked loaded questions like this they would be fired on the spot.

    So another vote at another time that asked this question:

    "Would you be happy if players were not immune from timeout while on vacation?" and it was requested in the same manner, under the same conditions, with the same "Yes" & "No" choices would also have a "Yes" outcome. Yes, on the whole the subscribers would be happy.

    Subscribers should not have been asked to vote about their happiness.

    Happiness is not the issue! They should have been asked a question about vacation timeouts. For example,

    "Should a player be immune from timeout while on vacation for a limited period (say 4 weeks)" with the options: Yes, No (The current situation), Not sure, Don't care.

    They could also have been directed to threads where this issue has been debated over and over again.

    Even better we could have had some alternative choices, "timeouts and the vacation period only", "Timeouts and timebanks (the current situation)", "Timeouts and a timebank top-up system" or "Timeouts plus timebanks plus a vacation period". (Right now we are being forced into the last choice only).

    Look at the other vote. People will vote for the status quo. Even if "No" had been suffixed with "(The current situation)" as in the other vote it would have received many, many more votes.

    This vote and its outcome is a sad, sorry, meaningless farce.

    My "site idea" is that it be declared null and void.[/b]
  3. Joined
    22 Aug '05
    Moves
    26450
    31 Aug '06 03:19
    Originally posted by Gatecrasher
    We have just been asked to vote:

    "Would you be happy if players were immune from timeout while on vacation for a limited period (say 4 weeks)."

    The PM says our vote is requested and would be very much appreciated.

    There are only two choices. Yes and No.

    People vote "No" if they would be unhappy. They vote "Yes" if they are happy. Chances are ...[text shortened]... farce.

    My "site idea" is that it be declared null and void.
    I agree completely - mind you as a non sub that means bugger all.
  4. Standard membercoentje
    Plop!
    /dev/null
    Joined
    05 Feb '06
    Moves
    31297
    31 Aug '06 04:42
    Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
    I agree completely - mind you as a non sub that means bugger all.
    it is still appreciated 🙂

    we can use all the support we can get trying to fight this vacation thing
  5. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    31 Aug '06 07:05
    I voted "yes" because I would like to go to vacation and not risk to be timed out.

    *** but ***

    if this is allowed to be misused in any way, like "I have some hundreds games going and I don't want to be timed out - hmmm, I put myself into vacation so I get time to breath a little, still playing!" then this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    I've made my suggestion about a new vacation system. Not mis-useable. Bullet-proof. But demands some programming by Russ and his staff. And a part of this is to not having to fear a time out during ones vacation. Hence my "yes".
  6. Standard memberJDK2
    Trainee Party Animal
    Joined
    25 Nov '05
    Moves
    18194
    31 Aug '06 10:591 edit
    Hi Fabian,

    If it was done here as I have seen at another site,

    Instead of saying "your turn" or "opponents turn", it would just say "on leave" meaning neither player could put in any moves.
  7. Joined
    26 May '02
    Moves
    72546
    31 Aug '06 11:321 edit
    Originally posted by Gatecrasher
    We have just been asked to vote:

    "Would you be happy if players were immune from timeout while on vacation for a limited period (say 4 weeks)."

    The PM says our vote is requested and would be very much appreciated.

    There are only two choices. Yes and No.

    People vote "No" if they would be unhappy. They vote "Yes" if they are happy. Chances are farce.

    My "site idea" is that it be declared null and void.
    I agree that the question could have been worded better. The word 'happy' should not have been used.

    However the actual message that the site admin sent out to all subscribers was quite clear:-

    From: Chess Host

    Date: Aug 30 15:59
    Subject: Your Vote is Requested!

    We have recently put two new votes on the site Vote 12 and Vote 13 - available via the Vote screen from the Community menu.

    The polls concern whether or not we will implement a change to the way timeouts can be claimed and also whether we should allow immunity from timeout while on vacataion.

    Your vote would be very much appreciated.

    If you have already voted, thank you.

    -The Red Hot Pawn robot.


    No mention of 'happiness' there!

    To describe the vote and its outcome as a "sad, sorry, meaningless farce" is an insult to all the people who have voted on this issue.

    The vote didn't go the way you wanted so it should be "declared null and void"? Absolutely hilarious!

    An overwhelming majority (1014 votes versus 465 votes) have voted in favour of vacation immunity. All those people who voted 'yes' are wrong because they haven't carefully studied the arguments in great detail, read all the relevant threads and spent days deliberating on the issue?

    Most players on this site have no interest in reading the forums. They just get on with their games. Of course they will vote on an issue that directly affects them. I imagine that most intend to go on vacation at some point and are worried about being timed out. Perhaps they've been timed out in the past or know other players who have been timed out because they went on holiday or were unexpectedly absent from the site for a while, such as through illness or an accident?

    Far from being a "meaningless farce", this vote has been a huge success. Much more people have voted on this issue than on any previous issue. The vote would only have been meaningless if only a few had voted. Russ and Chris should be very pleased with this level of feedback!
  8. Standard memberGatecrasher
    Whale watching
    33°36'S 26°53'E
    Joined
    05 Feb '04
    Moves
    41150
    31 Aug '06 12:261 edit
    Originally posted by David Tebb
    No mention of 'happiness' there!
    Yes but they were not asked the actual question in the PM. The question only comes when they follow the link.

    To describe the vote and its outcome as a "sad, sorry, meaningless farce" is an insult to all the people who have voted on this issue.

    Rubbish. My criticism is not of the people who voted, but the silly question they were asked and the limited options they were given.

    An overwhelming majority (1014 votes versus 465 votes) have voted in favour of vacation immunity.

    No, they have said they "would be happy if", not if they "support it.", or "favour it". Many people may not even agree with it but would still "be happy" if it (whatever it is) came about.

    And there are no implications given. Does the existing timebank system remain? Is this in addtition to it? Can people move when their flag is up? What is the minimum amount time they can put their flag up? What is the maximum number times they can raise their flag each year? Or can they just put it up and down at will any time they like to avoid imminent timeouts?

    Surely any vote on something as fundamental as this can be conditional at best.

    It's was a loaded question, the outcome of which was guaranteed the moment it was asked.

    Much more people have voted on this issue than on any previous issue. The vote would only have been meaningless if only a few had voted. Russ and Chris should be very pleased with this level of feedback!

    The number of people who voted is brilliant. But the brilliance in the turnout does not validate the sillyness of the question.

    Vote 12 is excellent. The question was excellent, the choices were excellent, the turnout was excellent. Well done, Russ and Chris.

    But Vote 13 remains a meanigless farce.
  9. Standard memberPhlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4
    Joined
    27 Mar '03
    Moves
    17242
    31 Aug '06 12:47
    Well, I can safely say I will NOT be happy if this immunity from TO's goes through. I could single handedly hold up some tourneys longer than I already do by taking my 30 days at the end and start of a year.

    All it takes is 4 users or so in a tourney to spread their 'vacation time' and drag a tourney or clan match out an extra half year or so.

    Rec'n for GC!

    P-
  10. Joined
    26 May '02
    Moves
    72546
    31 Aug '06 14:221 edit
    Originally posted by Gatecrasher
    Yes but they were not asked the actual question in the PM. The question only comes when they follow the link.

    [b]To describe the vote and its outcome as a "sad, sorry, meaningless farce" is an insult to all the people who have voted on this issue.


    Rubbish. My criticism is not of the people who voted, but the silly question they were asked and was excellent. Well done, Russ and Chris.

    But Vote 13 remains a meanigless farce.[/b]
    Tebb: To describe the vote and its outcome as a "sad, sorry, meaningless farce" is an insult to all the people who have voted on this issue.

    Gatecrasher: My criticism is not of the people who voted, but the silly question they were asked and the limited options they were given.

    Nonsense! You have repeatedly criticised them.

    For instance from the thread in the General Forums:-

    All Subscribers had PMs with hotlinks to the voting booth.

    What? A Vote? About what? Hmm, that sounds nice. Tick. Click
    .”

    Its great to have mass sufferage, but it would have been even nicer if PMs had also directed voters to a discussion or debate or had been given some background, some argument and counter argument as what the issue is about.

    Instead of "Would you happy if..."

    Ooh, yes, I would be happy. tick click
    .”

    Until the implications of this proposal are plain for all to see, people don't really know what they are voting for, other than their happiness, or course."

    Elsewhere you described the vote as an “abortion” and that the result was “retarded” (although you later edited that out).

    The implication of these posts seems to be that the people who voted ‘Yes’ are mouse clicking idiots who haven’t thought through the issue in sufficient depth (“they should have been directed discussion or debate or had been given some background, some argument and counter argument as what the issue is about&rdquo😉.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tebb: An overwhelming majority (1014 votes versus 465 votes) have voted in favour of vacation immunity.

    Gatecrasher: No, they have said they "would be happy if", not if they "support it.", or "favour it". Many people may not even agree with it but would still "be happy" if it (whatever it is) came about.

    That’s just semantic nit-picking.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gatecrasher: And there are no implications given. Does the existing timebank system remain? Is this in addition to it? Can people move when their flag is up? What is the minimum amount time they can put their flag up? What is the maximum number times they can raise their flag each year? Or can they just put it up and down at will any time they like to avoid imminent timeouts?

    Surely any vote on something as fundamental as this can be conditional at best.


    Presumably before working out all the complicated practical aspects of a new vacation immunity system, Russ and Chris first decided to see how many people were in favour of the idea in principle? There would be no point wasting time developing a scheme that nobody wanted.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gatecrasher: It was a loaded question, the outcome of which was guaranteed the moment it was asked.

    It’s funny how you didn’t say this earlier, when the majority of votes were ‘No’. Until the PM was sent out you probably believed that a ‘No’ outcome was guaranteed.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tebb: Much more people have voted on this issue than on any previous issue. The vote would only have been meaningless if only a few had voted. Russ and Chris should be very pleased with this level of feedback!

    Gatecrasher: The number of people who voted is brilliant. But the brilliance in the turnout does not validate the sillyness of the question.

    Vote 12 is excellent. The question was excellent, the choices were excellent, the turnout was excellent. Well done, Russ and Chris.

    But Vote 13 remains a meaningless farce.


    Alternatively, Vote 12 is excellent because you agree with the outcome!
    I suspect that if the results for Vote 13 had gone the opposite way you would have been equally delighted with it.
  11. Standard memberflexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    Chesstralia
    Joined
    18 Aug '03
    Moves
    54533
    31 Aug '06 14:296 edits
    how about considering the question:

    "Answer YES if you prefer our tournaments are never plagued by chronically lengthy delays caused by the scammers, the time wasters and the self centred people claiming to be on vacation whenever it suits their whims, intentionally or stupidly inconveniencing the dozens of keen and honest players anxiously waiting to play good chess in the next round (e.g. 4 weeks per year per person per round of pointlessly wasted play time)?"

    what would people vote?
  12. Standard memberGatecrasher
    Whale watching
    33°36'S 26°53'E
    Joined
    05 Feb '04
    Moves
    41150
    31 Aug '06 16:001 edit
    David, thanks for bringing all my posts together under one roof. You are an editor of note.

    If I am guilty of having an opinion, just shoot me.

    And don't be presumptious over how I voted in Vote 12 since it does not effect competitive games...

    Fact remains, how a quastion is asked, and the options that are provided are critical to the outcome of any poll.

    This is not just semantics. Here is a quick example how the outcome of a poll can be reversed by asking the same question a different way.

    http://www.ncpa.org/pd/govern/pd020899f.html

    'Experts note that on issues of relatively low salience, respondents have a strong tendency to agree with a reasonable sounding statement.

    This explains why yesterday, before the PM's were sent out (and the vote has only been announced in the forums), the majority of voters had voted "No." Why? Because these issues have been debated ad nauseum on these forums, and those who frequent the forum are well versed in all the issues. Those who don't frequent the forum may be facing this question for the very first time.

    In our case the poll question is very reasonable. But it ignores the fact that we already have a timebank system, and it ignores the complex issues surrounding how it could be implemented fairly and in a way that will enhances RHP rather than detract from it.

    And to begin with the phrase "Would you be happy if" ... well, enough said.

    There have been several workable and flexible ideas that could substantially improve gameplay at RHP with respect to time and vacations. Why have none of these ever been put to a poll?

    Why just this one unimaginative, blunderbuss of a "fix"?
  13. Standard memberPocketKings
    Banned from edits
    Grammar dyslexic
    Joined
    20 May '05
    Moves
    11372
    31 Aug '06 18:52
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    Well, I can safely say I will NOT be happy if this immunity from TO's goes through. I could single handedly hold up some tourneys longer than I already do by taking my 30 days at the end and start of a year.

    All it takes is 4 users or so in a tourney to spread their 'vacation time' and drag a tourney or clan match out an extra half year or so.

    Rec'n for GC!

    P-
    I don't think vote 13 should count for tournaments
  14. Argentina
    Joined
    23 May '03
    Moves
    2029
    31 Aug '06 22:07
    I remember when the number of posts was an isue, being it reported with the little profile below the avatar in each user's post.
    Russ takes out this, 'cos it incentivate users to put crap to win a fool race.
    Then, rec's were implemented. Nice idea, so the ppl that haven't the time to peruse thru all forums could read the most important (most voted) posts in the last week.
    But it was abused too. So recs doesn't mean anything just now.
    To the point: IMHO vacation flags system is nice as it is. No need to modify it. If you PM your opponents you can't move for some time, and they agree with that, that's OK for me.
    If you got TO's, well, these are the rules of the game. Point.
    BTW, pp; seems to forget that this is a CORRESPONDENCE SITE. Those who want to play games under 1/x, can go to uchess.com.
    1 day TO is heavyly subject to time zones.
    But it is another matter.

    regards

    - J

    p.s.: I'm a non subs. Anyway, my opinion is that the vacation system is ok as it is now. If I have to leave the site dor a certain amount of time, I'll appeal to the sportmanship of my ocasional conetenders, posting a msg with my on vacations flag or PM they.

    THIS IS CORRESPONDENCE CHESS!!!!!!

    pp.ss.: Sorry. Not being english my mother tongue, I'm sure I have to make a lot of spelling and grammar corrections. I'm way to tired to do so.
  15. This is embarrasking
    Joined
    17 Nov '05
    Moves
    38581
    01 Sep '06 05:59
    Gatecrasher, Phlabibit, Julia I just have to say I agree for what it is worth as a non-sub. Probably means nothing to you, that I agree with your thoughts and reasoning's. They are also my thoughts. It is just a waste of your opponents time. It is in my opinion poor sportsmanship to ask for more time because of lack of planning or to bring your hardships onto some other player or players. The show must go on. Why should someones vacation be forced on someone else. There is no sport I can think of that the game is postponed for the whims of a single player. And chess is considered a sport. An opponent may have an option to allow extra time if they choose but that should be their choice. I can foresee vacation wars erupting. Gate you are right the question was set up to be a loaded question. I am sure it was intentional. There is no need to sugar coat it. While I can say that the yes voters have raised some interesting arguments, I can see no real good that will come of it. It is really the first real reason for me to not want to subscribe. I have always said that if I were able I would want to sign up. Now I am positive I no longer do. And I know that breaks everyones hearts door hitting butt and all. But that's how I feel about it. Have fun ya'll.

    Cash
Back to Top