Red Army Policy on Quitters

I already expressed my views, but to be more precise:

Block those who time out from joining further team matches. For a few months, first time, and if later repeated a permanent block could be applied.

No banning is required to reduce the number of quitters.

The policy of consulting with you, before resigning a game, is not in accordance with basic chess rules because:
If I win a game or even get a draw - after first having decided to resign the game, but been told by you to continue -  I will have recieved help from you.

Okay, on one hand and speaking as a team member, I too wondered that my colleague's approach seemed a bit too... 'draconian'. It still maybe so.

On the other hand, speaking as an admin now, I have observed with admiration, the effort Eternalhope has put out in organizing the Red Army team match schedule; monitoring our games; coodinating with the group; and posting selected annotated games so that the group and individuals can discuss, and hopefully, improve their play. This is In addition to other contributions to the group & Chess.com all for no reward other than his own personal satisfaction of indulging in his passion for chess and being part of a group of like minded individuals. This group works because people like him give freely of their time and resources.

One would be unjust to take this quantum output forgranted. this is deserving of, at the very least, respect. Eternalhope has a right to try to ensure that that effort is not in vain; your suggestions of a different/better way of going about it are helpful.

Finally, Eternalhope does not act alone. all of the group admins are updated before anything is actioned. and as mentioned notices are sent to the deliquent parties who are a small percentage of the membership, prior to action being taken. Our intent is simply to be the best group we can be. And if members have no respect for our efforts then we will become disillusioned; degenerate into more a 'laissez faire' grouping and loose the ManU / Red Army ethos. 

EternalHopes efforts for our team is outstanding, and the Red Army ows him a lot. He conducts his responsibility as a Super Admin in an immaculate way. His analyses of our team matches are very good, and I hope people do study them carefully. He has my full respect and admiration - both as a leader, and as the coach, of this ragged crowd.

And a ragged crowd we sure are: The Red Army consist of a variety of members - from hooligans to gentlemen, and even a lady or two - united by the fact that we support Manchester United Football Club. The Red Army group at Chess.com gather those of us who also enjoy a game of chess, and we are quite a few. Most football supporter clubs has a team, playing fotball matches against other supporter clubs. Red Army at Chess.com are playing team chess games - all the time - and we want to preform as well as possible (!).

The problem with quitters must be addressed, and the quitters must face a consequence. Our team has 728 potential team match players and we should all be allowed to play, but I think it is reasonable to quarantine those who does'nt have the commitment it takes to finish a game, or not to time out. I have full confidence in our team leaders judgement when deciding who will play team matches for the Red Army. If some of our members times out more often than most, or has a record of resigning games in the opening, I urge you to notify them, and quarantine them if it seems likely to happen again.

Pling: This would require more bookkeeping on my part, but I can delete people from team matches (as opposed to banning them). It all depends on each individual situation.

Now, as for resigning, I can understand your points about not assisting other players in games (which is a violation). I would never ban anyone for resigning prematurely in a game. But what about a player who goes 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Resigns? We have had several instances of that.

Now, I have not had situations where I have timed out because of being unable to connect to chess.com. But I realize that it might happen. So, I can send notes first when it is not like someone to quit and ask what is going on. Then, if they are not forthcoming, I can take further action. But as an administrator, we need to be in the loop whenever there is a serious problem with people connecting (and I have told chess.com that). And if people are having connection problems with this site, then they should contact me so that I know they are not quitting and I will forward them on to chess.com.

How's this?

We provide the opportunity for all of you to experience tough competition, have fun, and be a part of a team. We ask one thing in return -- finish all your games and fight for every point. Unfortunately, we have had some people decide to put themselves over the team and quit team match games. Quitting is not an option -- if you start a team game, you finish it. Otherwise, it is not fair to the rest of us.

We realize that there are circumstances that happen that are beyond your control -- wars, natural disasters, deaths or sudden illnesses in the family, computer problems, etc. If you can't be at a computer for more than three days, put yourself in vacation mode. Every player has vacation time that they can use. 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 warn or ban.

If you’re having problems connecting to chess.com or it does not put you into vacation mode like it is supposed to, then please contact both me and a staff member of chess.com; this site is a work in progress, and they will not know that there is a problem with this site unless you tell them.

Playing for the Red Army or any other team is a privilege and not a right. If you join one of our matches, then you accept this rule. The only other thing we ask is that you follow basic rules of courtesy -- don't spam, treat everyone like you would if you were face to face, and be a team player.

"by pling
oslo Norway

And a ragged crowd we sure are: The Red Army consist of a variety of members - from hooligans to gentlemen, and even a lady or two - united by the fact that we support Manchester United Football Club.The Red Army group at Chess.com gather those of us who also enjoy a game of chess, and we are quite a few."

On another note; will someone take up the challenge of attracting more than "two ladies" to our ragged crowd??? both kinds... of the day & knight

Also, after "...we reserve the right to warn or ban."

We are not interested in adjudicating games – everyone has to play their own game. But if someone needs to quit, then they need to message me about it in advance if possible.

That way, people will know that we're not trying to tell people how to play their games; we're simply trying to put a stop to people who decide to quit.

Well, we will judge each case individually. We can't cover every conceivable situation, but we can let people know what the consequences will be if they decide to quit one of their team match games. How about "...we reserve the right to warn, bar from team matches, or ban depending on each individual circumstance." In other words, we look at their history, whether they have a recurring problem with doing this, and that kind of thing.

I have only just seen this forum after a week offline.

EH is the only person who seems to get more unjustified abuse for his efforts than I used to (the reason I stopped posting in open forums and restricted myself to posting in the more sensible, controlled group environment).

I apologise to EH that I have not made this clear previously to the group...EH has my full support. That is why we are both Super Admins of the group; I as the founder, EH as a member who has made more contributions to the group than ANYBODY else.

As for asking people's opinions. As a team we welcome everyone's input. However, we have rarely received very much of it even when it was blatantly requested.  Therefore the group admins will take decisions on behalf of the group. We welcome feedback, which may subsequently modify some of the policies introduced. Although this thread has gone way off topic and it would be more productive to stick to the points in question.

Also we do have a separate admins group where we may discuss things prior to implementing them. Most members who are banned are discussed within that group first. For anybody making significant contributions to the group, there is the opportunity to join the 'power trippers', I mean admin team.

The decision to ban members who are not team players is not new, it is just more transparent than previously. The bottom line is this; the admins of the group are not prepared to allow a minority of members to cause problems for the rest of the group.

If someone is spamming, they will be asked not to. If they continue, they will be removed from the group. If someone is timing out and giving up easily, we will look to see if this is common. The best thing they can do is avoid it. The next best thing to do is let us know. People who just give up and can't be bothered are not exactly demonstrating a great spirit. My opinion is that the internet allows people to behave as losers and victims more frequently, hardly a positive trend is it?

One member persisted in typing 'lol' in the forums. A few others joined all our vote chess games and ignored multiple requests to join the discussions, they wouldn't even read the comments already made and voted for the most ridiculous moves available. Other members quit games on a regular basis. All these members, mainly trolls, were banned for the benefit of the group.

With regards to chess.com rules; groups may have additional criteria. There are groups that only accept members with an average move stat below 6 hours. Some that only allow 2000+ rated players. Some will only accept you if you have over 1000 member points. Some require you to have a specific race, religion or nationality. Any group may ban or remove any member for any reason without prior warning. That is not a threat, purely clarification of the rules.

The question was raised as to how many matches have been lost due to time outs. The statistics are free for anyone to view, but it will be timely (said by a previous Stats student). I'm too busy, but if anyone has the interest please post your findings here and we can work some magic with the data

How many times have Man United won a match beyond the 90th minute?

3 European cups spring to mind, and a derby match for those with (previously mentioned substance abuse induced) poor memories.

Perhaps summed up best by the living legend already mentioned several times in this thread, Sir Alex;

It just takes hard work...but working hard all your life is not easy

Some people take it more seriously than others. That's fine. For those who do not take it seriously, follow a few basic rules to avoid spoiling it for other people. For those who are too selfish to do that, don't bother sending me messages asking to be reinstated...

I only respond to the funny ones and some people clearly get offended and feel the need to send me many more messages. I could of course block them, but then they might go and attempt rape, substance abuse, ethnic cleansing (and whatever else was discussed earlier), in frustration that they are not able to vent.

We can't 'quarantine' members. We are unable to prevent team members from joining any group activity. Our only option is to completely prevent them from participating in the group.

I appreciate all the constructive feedback. Unfortunately a few of the comments, not from yourself, seemed to be based more on perceptions of EH based on the opening post, rather than the opening post itself. The risk there is that members just disagree because they begin disliking each other, and the argument becomes more about different personalities rather than the subject matter.

The new improved version is now up.

Manchero: On the team match thing, there is a "delete" button that we can use to remove people from team matches.

Oh now I realise what you mean by extra admin tasks. Yeah, I for one certainly wouldn't be doing that:)

I did it recently. I recently took many people (myself included) off a team match where we outrated them by several hundred points, only four had signed up from the other team in 24 hours, and I thought it would be a good idea to make it evenly matched and to get some of our lower-rated people a chance to play even competition for once; normally, our lower boards are killing us because they are outrated by several hundred points. I don't think that's a problem as long as you tell people what you're doing.