31 Aug 06
Originally posted by GatecrasherOh sorry, maybe I worded my post wrong:
You obviously don't read too well, because that's exactly what I'm saying.
You sound like one of those crazy preacher-men, standing half naked on street corners, screaming about Armageddon.
Your objections have been noted. Relax. Let's see what happens.
31 Aug 06
Originally posted by CrowleyHot off the www.Notimeforchess.com press:
Oh sorry, maybe I worded my post wrong:
You sound like one of those crazy preacher-men, standing half naked on street corners, screaming about Armageddon.
Your objections have been noted. Relax. Let's see what happens.
Vote # 13 thread slows and dares to die on page # 13
Current polling:
1109 yes
504 no
31 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by GatecrasherI read your edit and agreed. If it is only a poll and not a vote then why would it be necessary to exclude non-subs. I have a proposal. How about an additional poll/vote for the non-subs and this time when it is sent out to them ask the question;
There is also time for the Site Admins to realise how poorly formulated this poll was in the first place.
It may be called a vote, but in reality it is a poll.
Remember, this is not a democracy, its a business, and any new measure that is likely to be bitterly unpopular with a signifcant portion of the membership is not likely to be adopted.
T as spawned, and come back later on with a proposal that will be more universally acceptable.
" Would you be unhappy if players were immune from timeout while on vacation for a limited period (e.g. 4 weeks per year)?"
31 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by GatecrasherAnd if you were playing this game with 180 days, and realised you were losing after say 20 days, would you wait 160 days just to annoy your opponent? It seems to me that is what is being suggested elsewhere on the large number of threads that are discussing this issue. (Good stuff too)
A vacation "bank" is much more acceptable in the absense of timebanks. But I would like to see a solution that increases the likelyhood of games finishing earlier rather than later.
A timebank only approach could also serve this purpose. Instead of 3/7, 7/14, etc, every game has a limited timebank. For example a 6 month game would allow each player ...[text shortened]... ey get back.
There will be no need for a vacation flags, and games cannot drag on forever.
I'm damn sure the system people here are not as daft as seems to be implied in some of these posts....
31 Aug 06
Originally posted by cashthetrashHow about nonsubs who care a lot about this issue buy memberships and then vote on it?
I read your edit and agreed. If it is only a poll and not a vote then why would it be necessary to exclude non-subs. I have a proposal. How about an additional poll/vote for the non-subs and this time when it is sent out to them ask the question;
" Would you be unhappy if players were immune from timeout while on vacation for a limited period (e.g. 4 weeks per year)?"
31 Aug 06
Originally posted by NordlysI agree completely.
Hm, if the vacation bank wouldn't apply to tournaments, it wouldn't make much sense to me. I think it is especially important in tournaments. It's easy to avoid starting a 1-day timeout game if you know you'll be on holidays within the next two months or so, but a 1-day timeout tournament could easily last a year or more. So if you want to take two we ...[text shortened]... ear, you either have to settle for slower tournaments or you have to risk getting timed out.