For future: Regards the arbitrary 25% limit on removing timeout players

I wonder how much support there would be for removing (perhaps for next season) the arbitrary 25% limit on removing timeout players from rosters.

I think it'd benefit all if there are fewer timeouts all over, and teams would enjoy greater autonomy if allowed to manage their teams as they see fit.

The fewer timeouts there are overall, the more the competition becomes about chess, and the less it becomes about internet connections.

In the recent thread on the related topic, I see there was some support for this idea in principle - I wonder how widespread the view is.

i agree, but there has to be some controle, to avoid strategical removing of players.

maybe a thread where the timeouters are reported ??

@David: Please help me to understand: do you propose a or b?

a) Absolutely no rule against the removal of players by TO criteria

b) Players can be removed but they must have atleast 1% TO or an other limit under 25% TO [later edit]

16 Players have been removed..... Thats a big number for such a tough competition   between 2  strong teams.  Both teams wants to finish number 1. That is why  before the  tounaments start  I ask everyone for support and  have some penalty rules for removal players  who NOT have tiemeout percentage 25% and more. I even  said  if its 1 or 2 players then its ok because it is possible that members removed themselves, but if its 3 and more then that team  MUST  penalised by the quantiity of players have been removed  multiply by 2 and in that case doesn't matter members or administrators  remove from roster . I think thats not normal when people registering themselves and later removing  themselves! How about have a rules like this for rest of the tounaments before  something like this happen again. 

j-pax, that's a good idea.

unu, as for a) and b), of course a player could have a timeout history longer ago than the 90 days. Certainly when recruiting I will often pass over asking a player to play even if he has notes on his page from times past of an admin asking him why he timed out. Normally we just focus on not recruiting timeouters, and only actively remove players who have timed out repeatedly specifically in League matches (not concerning ourselves if they have timed out in other games); we give such players temporary bans from playing if they didn't have a good reason, and if they join anyway, we remove them. If prevented by rules from doing this, we'd just have to ban them completely from our team, which is something we do for particularly prolific offenders. As to your two options; a) would be the easiest to implement, and b) would be the safest / most forgiving of past timeouts so players can actually start playing again at some point.

Karen, you seem to have missed the point of this thread; please reread the initial post.

We're talking about the last players on the roster. If a player is removed in a higher position, it is not a problem.
Unexcused remove one player or 10 players, there is no difference, the rule is the rule. Must not be removed  player, if no more than 25% TO (or maybe 20%?)
There is another problem. The player has a 5% TO, but has just started to lose a his games, what to do in this case?

Right, NOPI, and for this reason I'm suggesting abolishing - or at least seriously reducing - the threshold %, for reasons such as this.

It's the first time I have commented on this situation and that is because Team England are unanimous in our view that the threshold for removal of timeouters should be at the very least reduced significantly, and preferably abolished entirely. As Team England are unanimous, I am quite content for DavidStyles to be our spokesperson on this matter.

I would just say one thing. I am sure the every admin will have suffered in the same way that Team England  have suffered,  in that after writing to every single player in your team, possibly more than once, a player will let the whole team down by forfeiting  both games by timeout without a single move being played.  

Why should I not be allowed to punish that player by refusing to let him play in the next match, or in repeat offences a number of matches?

i think teams should be allowed to remove anybody they like with a time out % above 10%. i think removing anybody with a time out % as low  as 1 is a little harsh as they  may have a perfectly acceptable reason.Team England trys to alleviate the problem by not inviting people with  high time out ratios but of course that doesnt stop people inviting themselves.maybe it would help to check people out as soon they register for a match and remove them as soon as possible and not at the last possible minute.  the  suggestion by Rumania of a 32 point penalty was way to harsh and actually the -8 + 8 decision is still a bit strong especially if you see how close our WL  match is.

A good point Jacco, and one that I would like to take up ...

The present 25% rule gives Admins discretion/power. In effect, the power to manage rosters. At 25%, the extent of that power is limited and, consequently, any mis-use is unlikely to effect the outcome of a match.

The more the 25% is reduced, the more power is given to Admins. Any (potential) mis-use of such power is most potent in the few days before lock (post #10 alludes to this).

Thus, if the 25% figure is to be reduced, a key issue would be control/policing. The time factor would most probably have to be a component of a policing system. Given that players can, of their own volition, 'un-join' a match at any time prior to lock, designing a fit for purpose policing system, that isn't too onerous for Admins, could be difficult.

Lets make  decision: are we changing  removal of 25 % and more timeout rules with something else? Also we need some rules about what kind of penalties will be given to team if they break the rules. Sorry, but  I think just warning  will not help...

I think 25% ratio should stay, otherwise this rule could be used by admins to get unfair advantage

How? Why is 25% a special number that cannot be abused, whereas a different number could be? If it's the same number for everyone, it's fair, no?

so a team is forced to include a player who times out  in 1 out of  4 games? maybe the rule should be no removing players in the last 2 days before the match is due to start. but  how do you  tell the difference between someone who has been removed by Admin, and someone who has decided to remove themsleves of their own accord?

A good point Richard, and one that I covered in my post #11

Like I said  before  we cant give some team  advantages:  1-2 people removed themselves with NOT 25% timeout -OK, but if 3 and more then  doesnt matter who remove them- penalty by the number of players have been removed multiply by 2.      Excluding  those admins  remove  who havent been online for 3 and more days,  but not less than 3 days. And the removel has to be the day when  tha match set to start and not any day before that.

@DavidStyles I assume we can decrease it to 20%, believe me it's fair percentage to avoid speculation with this matter

Guys from Britain, if you would like to hear other Team's opinion let's here it... if you would like to stick with yourself why you create this thread? 

It's England Adriano. Not Britain. :)

Also, we're not stopping anyone else from posting, by expressing our own views. On the contrary, the topic was made in the hope of canvassing support for a change for the better. There have been some views in favour, some against, and some just discussing options. This is normal discourse.