Genocide, you ask is it relative ? it was to the Nazi's it was to the Soviets it is to the Sudanese.Luckily I am not a Nazi a Soviet or Sudanese and I find It unacceptable to me.As for George Bush Associated press reports 110.000 violent deaths since the war began not millions.And you are the one who Advocates oppression of choice and free speech each of your contrbutions are full of it.I on the other hand foster free choice and speech. But you are deviating from the subject now.I took the time to check the Romania match "5 minutes of my life I wont get back" and did see that a lot of games had been timed out, around 20 .It would have made no difference to the result we were beaten by 50 points.I concede that the timeouts were high but while looking I noticed a pattern appearing.All the games who timed out were people from the Phillipines and Malaysia,no disrespect to those people, but did you consider that they may not have broadband possibly not even a home computer or the cash to dial up each day.A great deal of these people live in poverty.In future put your brain into gear before typing up and sending veiled threats to the good members of the Red Army.
Red Army Policy on Quitters
Well, if things are happening that are beyond peoples' control, then people need to tell me what's going on. You don't know peoples' situations, so your appeals to guilt mean nothing to me. They don't need your "help" to talk to me or some other administrator. As an administrator, I am more than happy to work with people when they have a legitimate excuse, and the rest of us are as well. And Team Philippines, you know, the people who you are supposedly speaking for, has won 62% of their matches and they are ranked #6 in that category on this site. So, being from the Philippines is not an excuse for quitting and walking off without telling us. So that means that people can, do, and should take responsibility for getting to a computer once every three days or tell one of us what's going on if they can't. No matter where they are from. You would think they would have that problem, but they don't.
Now, you lamely admit that there are absolutes with your defense of free speech. And you implied as much with your statement that I somehow have no right to lay down the law. But first of all, I am not doing this on my own; I speak for all the rest of us administrators and Manchero. I went to Manchero and the rest of the administrators, and we all agreed on both the policy and the wording. We all agree that this is a problem. Secondly of all, when people decide to quit games without telling us what's going on, that's their choice. So it's only fair that they know what the consequences are. People make their choices in life and live with them. We have to decide what is best for the Red Army.
Frankly I think you are talking balls.I re-read the threatening message telling us we face being banned or"fired "if we don't complete our games.And how you shall be regularly viewing all our games it all sounds a little like a George Orwell novel.I credit Manchero with more sense than you and would speculate had he or anyone proof read it they would have seen the veiled content and made some alterations as to its manner.I obviously don't take kindly to threats and will be very vocal about it,I'm not doing this to help anyone ,I was offended by the message and it should have been the last place I would have expected it from.The "real" Red Army would never sink so low and I presume we wish to emulate them?.Think of the Red Army as a trade union, a trade union for the old cotton mills of Lancashire the sailors and the troubadours of Salford docks the Miners in the collieries because they are who established it.I speculate that none of them would have taken kindly to your words.Being from Manchester I know these people. Millers,Dockers,Troubadours and Miners never have a rowdier group of people congregated together at the Stretford end and shown solidarity with one and other.That was the group I joined,I must have confused this place with something else.
He did proof-read it before I posted it. I let him as well as all the other administrators look at it.
I'll tell you what we can do and what we can't do. I realize that it might be a stretch for some people to get to a computer or have a decent connection every three days. Most of the matches that we play are three-day matches. But if we offer five-day and seven-day and even 14-day matches for people, then more people will participate and fewer people will drop out of games. That hasn't been done in the past. We will be fitting peoples' situations better that way. I'm trying to find a way that is fair for everyone
That said, what I will not do is tolerate people who decide that they are more important than the rest of the team and dump on us, for want of a better word. Everybody is responsible for having a reliable connection a way to get to a computer and everybody is responsible for telling us what is going on if that is somehow not possible. I speculate that these millers, dockers, troubadours, and miners that you supposedly have so much solidarity with do not take kindly to people who decide not to show up for work one day.
The policy of allowing or denying players to resign a game is in conflict with the rule that disallowes help from other players. It should be abandoned immediately.
We all have different opinions about what is a winning, a losing or a drawish position, and in chess it's left to the single players individual judgement alone to decide whether to resign a game, or not.
I think a polite reminder, accompanying the invitation to join the team match, would do. We are all well aware of the results for the team, if we quit a team match.
This is all about building lojalty, and I don't believe that threats of banning members is the right approach. The initial post serves as an outlet of frustration, but that might lead it to having an opposite effect of what was intended: Threats often trigger anger, and signing up for a lot of team matches - only to quit them all - would be the perfect revenge for someone who is provoked by threats of being banned.
I don't know what posibilities a Super Admin has, but I suggest you make a list of the quitters and block them from joining further team matches. For a few months, first time, and if later repeated a permanent block should be applied.
The Red Army is a Manchester United supporter firm, and it has no traditions for banning members.
Competetiveness is a good deed, but not at this level. There is no reason to believe that there are more quitters in the Red Army, than in other teams. Also we don't know the reasons why they quit, and our responce to those who do should reflect just that. I would hate to see a member dying - to be banned from our team - and I believe, so will many others.
Don't get me wrong -- this is not a rule against resigning in a lost position. This is a rule against timing out or resigning in the opening or resigning in an obviously won position (for instance, if you're up a Queen). It's a matter of common sense -- if someone resigns prematurely, I'm not going to ban them for that. But if they time out and leave with no explanation, they they should be banned. If I ban someone and they want to come back a few months down the road, then I judge each situation individually.
One possible reason might be that they have a bad connection -- that's why I'm trying to offer some longer matches as well as shorter matches so that doesn't happen. Another reason that I've seen is that some people take on hundreds of games, can't keep up with all of them, and then time out. People like that are a liability to the team because one cannot maintain that many games and play their best. There was one person who timed out on 777 games.
And it all depends on each individual situation. I may decide that one person who is otherwise a good member should not be banned for timing out of a 960 match, because they might not have realized what they were getting into. But if someone times out on two of their games and I see that they have timed out on 33% of their games, then I may decide to ban them.
And I see timing out as a problem here more than other places. First of all, in our last match with Romania, we timed out on around 20 games, and they did not time out on that many at all; that accounted for a lot of the margin of victory. And in our current match with them, they are up 5 on us and six people or so have timed out on our side and none on theirs.
Well, I'm going to judge on each individual situation. For instance, I might just send a note if it is not like someone to time out. But if they are timing out all their games, I might ban them and then they would have to talk to me before I let them back in. And you talked about fun. Well, to me, from personal experience, if someone forgets to log in for two days and they start timing out on a bunch of their games, that tells me that they see it as a chore as opposed to having fun. If you're having fun, then it shouldn't be that hard to remember to log in every day. And finally, if you're satisfied with where you are, then that means that you are no longer growing. And if you are no longer growing, then the next outcome will be atrophy. You think Sir Alex is satisfied with where he is at the midpoint of the season and his team is in the top 10?
Have you ever heard of the phrase "there is no I in team" you should step back eternal hope and take a long hard listen to yourself "I'm doing this,I may do that they must talk to me,before I let them me me me me me,where is the input from the other admins or a super admin.I said before you are a tin pot admin on a power trip I stand by that your last post is proof positive.
I did consult with the other administrators before putting in this policy. They all agreed to this policy and the wording. And that phrase works both ways -- There is no "I" in team; therefore, if people care about their team and put the team ahead of themselves, they should not time out of games. Or if something happens beyond their control, then they care about the team enough to tell me or some other administrator what is going on.
You misunderstand once again you are talking about making unilateral decisions and banning people, whats to stop you banning me? where is your team of admins input in these decisions you are going to make, because I don't think you are cabable of make sound informed decisions.I have tried to inform you this is a bad policy you continue to spout garbage without any solid reasoning I told you about the philipines and possible reasons for them timing out and you replied that I dont know what their position is ,the whole world knows it is little more than third world at this point in time, racked by tsunami's and earth quakes and you persist to argue they should be banned you are quickly losing any credibility you had continuing with this,you might get your way but if you do I there will be a price to pay and the Red Army will pay it not you.
Xandy71, I'm sorry, but we have basic philosophical differences and there is no more point in arguing with you. Neither one of us is going to convince each other.
Have you checked with chess.com, if your new policy is according to their rules? I think you should - before investing to much prestige on it.
The new policy is expressed in the initial post:
"I'm going to go through the team games on a regular basis, and if I see that someone has quit, and it has not been cleared with any of us, then they will be banned. No warnings will be given."
Why dont you create a charter,a creedo which everyone can read and contribute a opinion to and even vote as to what goes in the charter, when the charter is created we can all sign up ,and all future members can be asked to read and sign up to it if they want to become a member.
Well, if someone can convince me that it is not in accordance with chess.com rules, then I would be more than happy to modify it. I have been known to change my mind.
And don't get me wrong -- I'm not going to micromanage this place. For instance, I'm not going to tell people how they can and can't play. For instance, we have a guy who likes to trade into endings at every opportunity whether the board calls for it or not. He likes getting into endings and working on them. That's his decision. Is it what I would have done? No -- but I'm not going to stand over him and tell him he can't play like that. The two things I'm really going to put my foot down on are people who are chronic quitters (such as people who have a really high time-out percentage) and people who are not here to have fun, but who are here to disrupt. Other than that, I'm going to treat everyone like adults.
And like I told the other poster, we will have more long matches like 7-day matches and 14-day matches so that we can fit peoples' preferences. I'd rather prevent timing out from happening in the first place, which is why I am doing it this way. We'll still have plenty of 3-day and 5-day matches as well.
Pling: How about this: "We reserve the right to ban..." In other words, that would be more flexible.
How about this:
I'm going to go through the team games on a regular basis, and if I see that someone has quit, and it has not been cleared with any of us, then we reserve the right to send people a note or ban them. It's just like work -- if you can't be here for whatever reason, then tell us what is going on. We will be much more lenient if we know what is going on than if you do a silent withdrawal.
Except in our experience, from what I can tell, we have a disproportionate number of people timing out of games, leading to us losing matches we should have won or at least been more competitive in. In other words, around here, if someone times out and they quit all their games, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will get the points back for us sometime down the road.
I don't know, but take the Romania match, for instance -- we would be in the lead or tied if it weren't for people quitting. Now let me ask you this -- you say everything is relative. OK -- what about genocide -- is it relative? Or is there an absolute universal prohibition against genocide? Or what about George Bush? Are you saying that we have no right to criticize what George Bush did in killing millions of people in Iraq because everything is relative to the person?