I'm on it -- just trying to get games for your two last players .... managed to get another to join in the last 5 mins ! Will definitely lock now at 10pm - just waiting to see if one of 6 more players come on line.....

Rob. Remnder. Waiting for YOU to lock down Essex. 9.40pm 1st July Cheers

Well, to get around it, maybe get them to send in the opposition's team when they lock?

Hmmm, interesting - Team Feelcheated : "that 2450 player was NOT in your team !!" Team Latelock : "Yes he was!!!"

If no new players join their team, we'll let them off. If other players join, they must be withdrawn. If not we may have to apply points sanctions.

Can I just ask - what happens if the opposition 'forget' to lock there team on the designated Start day?

Yes, I advise having backup admins for that purpose, but that's really up to the Super Admins to decide how they structure their team. If they make that mistake, then they pay the penalty.

Thats a good solution Alex, but it wouldnt cover geniune mistakes, ie the SAs might be on vacation or away through no fault of their own, which begs the necessity of having backup admins to cover for you

After speaking privately to the people below, it turned out that they meant that if one SA accepts a challenge on July 1, gets everyone to register, then locks within an hour or two. Then, the other SA has no time to get his players in before losing on time due to the lateness of the invite. If that did happen, chances are we'd extend the sign up period, but to make that crystal clear, a rule was added, saying that: "At the very latest, matches must be accepted 3 days before the day on which the fixture list specifies." 3 days was selected, because the games are 3 days per move. So if they don't use the site for three days, they'd lose on time. So there's no point in them registering.

I'm a little non-plused by this example ??? There are designated matches and as long as you get 5 players to play you cannot be disadvantaged....

I don't understand the complaint at the moment. I agree that people shouldn't cheat, but I don't understand the particular form of cheating that is trying to be explained here.

 i would like to back blackfirestorm666 comments.

We need to make sure that all foul play is discourage and the tournament is play in a fair and good spirit.

I would like to, if it is possible, to make an addition to the rules as stated above? 

It has been suggested that some people MAY decide to use dirty tactics to try and secure a win in this tournament. 

A team gets their players together at around the same time, accept the challenge and then get everyone to sign up for the match leaving the opposing team no choice but to lock the match or else face forfeit. 

I believe this kind of unsportsmanship is unacceptable if a team wants to play fair games. 

I am proposing that if we are faced with this kind of tactic then a team should be heavily penalised for this as this is meant to be about fun not win at all costs.

Respond by pointing out the rules, and explaining how they have digressed on both occasions.

OK Alex - Essex have been challenged already by Oxfordshire in the open! The match is incorrectly titled and has been sent 17 days too early! How should I respond?

If a team fields 4 players, they default the bottom board. So you're 2-0 up before you even start, providing you too have 5 players. Chess.com challenges won't reflect this, but it'll be reflected in our scores.

Do you really mean challenges should be composed as 1+? How does that make it a minimum of 5 boards?