Timeout ratio doesn't make sense.

I recently timed out on my first Bulldog game. So, it was decided that I could not play since I timed out the first round. However, when I decided I might try it again and enter a smaller tournament, I was told that I could not as I had a 100% timeout ratio. To me, this doesn't seem right. It's like saying that during your first chess tournament, you lose against someone else on time. So you go to the next tournament. But it says you cannot join because your first game was a timeout. 100% ratio. Well, now you play another normal game. But the tournament is done.

I think that timeout should not start to be taken for stats until eh fourth game, so they can see whether it is really someone who timeouts often or it was just one case. You can't judge that off one game.

How many Bulldog games did you lose on timeout?

One. The only one I've ever played.

It sounds like you do not intend to have timeouts more often.

I do not. 

Since you make such a strong point, I only can say that I honoustly hope that @Martin0 will give you one more chance in the Giga tournament. But he is the TD there, not me. Anyways we can play a rated Bulldog game anyways.

Okay.

Thanks.

So shall I start a game?

Sure. Bulldog?

Yes, later this evening or tomorrow I'll create it. I have made a note of it.

Okay. See you then. 

This isn't blitz timing out is due to poor judgement. It devalues people's tournament experience.

So until you complete a game without timing any TD can say they don't want you while staying entirely reasonable. You're not banned from all tournaments ever, just ones that TDs who don't appreciate people won't take there tournament seriously and while you haven't completed a game.

That's not what I'm saying. In things like tournaments, it's fine. But it shouldn't go off that if you have played one game. It's illogical. I think that you should have played four games before being put off aside as someone who has a 100% timeout ratio.

I try to be strict with the rules I create. If we take the player @Junebug444 for example, then he has a long history of completing games and was even the bulldog world champion for some time. However, since he lost the first round in the giga dog tournament by timeout I sticked to the rules and eliminated him from the tournament. I like him and wants him to still be in the tournament, but I do not want to show favoritism.

I agree that losing one game on timeout is not much to judge on, but I also think requiring completion of one rated game is not much to ask for either. I have nothing against you and I believe you when you say you intend to complete future games, but I want to be strict with my rules. Does that make sense?

Calling it 100% timeout ratio does make it sound worse than it actually is, I agree with that.

I get it. I just feel that for the first game, especially where I am not familiar with doing this, and I feel that the timeout ratio should not start out until 4 games are completed. Then, moderators like you can decide. For example, if I lose all 4 games on timeout, then that's acceptable. But if I don't then I can play. Just my 2 cents.

According to my own archive I've played 2 very nice games against @JuneBug444.

If making a correct judgement was the main goal, then the tournament would also require 4 games completed, which obviously is not what we want here (although requiring minimum amount of games is not that uncommon for chess tournaments on this site).

My rules are some compromise of trying to avoid players that timeouts, but also allow new players. I'm not going to say they are right or wrong, just the way I chose to implement them. You are more than welcome to my tournaments after you complete your game with evert.

Also, I'm glad that we're able to hold this conversations without going to personal attacks or insults, which tends to happen way too much on the internet.

I agree with Martin that asking a player who has completed a game to have completed at least 1 without timing out is a reasonable requirement for a tournament. Most tournaments have minimum games and time out ratio demands so only having time out demands is more than fair.

But TDs can choose to do it however they want 

I would say that one of the four games could be the ones before timeout ratios, so you could play one or two of your four games as tournament games. However, your points are good. I'll have to put more thought into finding a good solution or whether it shouldn't be considered at all.

P.S. Also agree, arguing happens often, and it's nice to have a good debate without the name-calling.