bulletheadbilly, at least I'm trying to get matches started. You say that you have no time to help but if you complained less and did more constructively with your time possibly you could be an asset and maybe we would have less problems. 
Minimum number of players
Sort:
BlackMagic wrote:
bulletheadbilly, at least I'm trying to get matches started. You say that you have no time to help but if you complained less and did more constructively with your time possibly you could be an asset and maybe we would have less problems.
Well It does not take much Effort to enforce the Minimum Players, The Mechanical Turk wont let the Match Begin. all i am saying, is that if you set a minimum, then Stick with it...., Set it where you want, Sky High, or Desert Low, but Dont Change it up in the Middle of the Stream....Let Your "Yes" mean Yes, and Your "No" mean No....
Well i looked at some Teams in the Lower Divisions that i have Blood Heritage with, and would be glad to help them recruit players if they are running Short. Northern Ireland, wales, and Scottland...
WHATS WITH ALL OF THE CAPITAL LETTERS? Your arguements have already given me a headache without that.It's a gray world. Black and white doesn't always work. You seem to be an annoyance specialist. 
I won't respond to you until you have done something constructive.
BlackMagic wrote:
WHATS WITH ALL OF THE CAPITAL LETTERS? Your arguements have already given me a headache without that.It's a gray world. Black and white doesn't always work. You seem to be an annoyance specialist. I won't respond to you until you have done something constructive.
Well in Case you Dont Know , Let me tell you what time it is....Its Time for you not to be Expecting to Dictate My Efforts, My Caps, or my oppinions...Ease Up , or you will realyy start looking Crooked....
Mar 16, 2013
0
#27
What if rather than forfeiting the entire match, the team who was short players just forfeited the bottom boards? In live play in the league I direct, this is what we do when teams show up with fewer than the minimum of five. The only question is that I'm not entirely certain that the league directors have a way of seeing which team was short after the match started.
(Just to make sure I'm clear, suppose Team A has over the minimum of 75 players and Team B can only field 70 players. Team A wins by default both games on Boards 71-75, and is essentially at a 10-0 lead.)
[EDIT: Corrected grammar.]
This is official protest of Team Poland.
The rule 50+ players has been broken by ukrainian team in match:
WL2013 R1 / EL2013 R10: Ukraine - Poland
We have now 100+ (!!) players in settings and because of that I conclude to cancel this match and to set a new one with a proper settings.
At the moment our oponnent is forcing us to start this double match (EL2013 R10 is scheduled for September'13) also ignoring my proposed, in good faith, start on Monday 18th Mar'13 at 8pm for which, ironically, I was asked for.
Cezary, it seems to me that this is about match problems, so it should be posted in the WL HQ match problems thread, of course.
100+ players is the correct setting for Div A, WL 2013 matches.
ilmago wrote:
Cezary, it seems to me that this is about match problems, so it should be posted in the WL HQ match problems thread, of course.
100+ players is the correct setting for Div A, WL 2013 matches.
I tend to Disagree ..this is a good place to post this issue...that way we can see first hand, The Rules Being Bent in Progress, in Real Time....
Poland wins by Default.....
No Need To Resort to Namecalling.
Mar 17, 2013
0
#33
Cezary wrote:
This is official protest of Team Poland.
The rule 50+ players has been broken by ukrainian team in match:
WL2013 R1 / EL2013 R10: Ukraine - Poland
We have now 100+ (!!) players in settings and because of that I conclude to cancel this match and to set a new one with a proper settings.
At the moment our oponnent is forcing us to start this double match (EL2013 R10 is scheduled for September'13) also ignoring my proposed, in good faith, start on Monday 18th Mar'13 at 8pm for which, ironically, I was asked for.
The minimum players for each division should be set to a number that every team can easily meet. Not so low that roster packing is the preferred method of winning, but low enough that there is no question enough players will be available.
Forfeit wins are anathema to me. I would not want my team to win by forfeit, either as an admin or player. I'd prefer to lose over the board (going down fighting) to a team that fielded a smaller but stronger set of players than to win by forfeit. Though of course I'd much prefer to win over the board.
I agree DaveShack. To many forfeitures will destroy the league. We are working on the problem. Constructive ideas are welcome.
bulletheadbilly wrote:
BlackMagic wrote:
bulletheadbilly, at least I'm trying to get matches started. You say that you have no time to help but if you complained less and did more constructively with your time possibly you could be an asset and maybe we would have less problems.
Well It does not take much Effort to enforce the Minimum Players, The Mechanical Turk wont let the Match Begin. all i am saying, is that if you set a minimum, then Stick with it...., Set it where you want, Sky High, or Desert Low, but Dont Change it up in the Middle of the Stream....Let Your "Yes" mean Yes, and Your "No" mean No....
The last of his quote does make sense.
What about http://www.chess.com/groups/team_match?id=242262, the first game of Serbia and Sweden?How will it change the division B championship?
The match problems are dealt with in the World League Headquarters group with the team admins. In that match Team Sweden has until Mar 31 to meet the minimum number of players in the match or will default.
You Say minimum like it really means what you say. set the minimum and if its not meant it is called a Forfeit do to default. Anything else is Wormy....