Upper limit on games playing concurrently

Well, little 'Dark-hearted' Englishman, at least I don't feed off bottom-dwellers to pad my rating.  Chill out, guy.  Grab an ale - a Samuel Smith Lager, an Ivanhoe, a Newcastle... kick back and take a deep breath.  Hum a few bars of God Save the Queen or something from those 'Liverpool boys'... or The (Scottish) Proclaimers...  Perhaps you could do so while poking around in that "fish-filled river."  Roll out your blankie and take a nap.  Then return with a fresh perspective on this thread which, between you and me, had digressed into "ill thought-out ramblings" as well as provoking and thoughtful insights.  Try not to copy everything I say with your own attempts at perspicacity.  That's embarrassing and a close second to point-counter-point discussions.  Think of something novel.

Let's do this.

I'll offer something in addition to what I set forth previously regarding "victimization" and the like, such as changing the channel, and you respond with something which is in line with "the purpose of this thread."  Between the two of us, we'll gravitate toward sensibilities which the readers of our picayune and piddling prose will undoubtedly become attracted to with earnest interest.

So, here's to you, Mr. Englishman- I tip my hat and offer you a toast of my own Budweiser and salted cashews, recognizing I have encountered a fellow Vans-man who holds unique potential and possibilities of friendship.

Here it is:  Excessive games being played?  Encourage site managers to set the limit based upon rating level or Basic, Premium, etc, membership, or length of membership, or won-lost percentage...  Besides, it might be of some benefit to the site server.

How's that?  Be nice, now.  And don't break our mugs when we make the toast.

Kindest regards, I remain still IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!  

I think we're all punched out and no-one even got hurt, a good day had by all.

To take you up on a few points:

1. I don't seek to pad my rating...I have often played unrated games (over 100 at the moment, I think).  The "unrated statistic" would be much higher, if it were not for the insistence of most lower-rated opponents (they claim the "spice" goes out of the game when playing unrated). I am currently waiting for eight second round tournaments to continue, and with slow play, who knows if they will all start together? I rarely challenge anyone myself, prefering to accept challenges from friends or those that message me. I also issue open challenges to all-comers and am randomly paired by the site or by the choice of the opponent. Would it be better if I declined challenges from "improvers"? or would that make me a chess snob? Democracy in chess cuts both ways.

2. You sir, are the master of copying everything... heck! you even copied me when you made that accuastion, and I quote:

"had digressed into "ill thought-out ramblings" as well as provoking and thoughtful insights.  Try not to copy everything I say with your own attempts at perspicacity.  That's embarrassing"

I was merely giving you back what you considered good enough for your own posts, as you clearly didn't like/learn from  the point-by-point approach... you said so yourself.

Getting back to the issue... I think this episode has demonstrated that an upper limit of some sort is required. If no upper limit then what? we all just sit impotent (again) whilst some over-eager chess-nut racks up 2000 games? what about 10000 games? It's no good saying "The average time per move will sort that out"....it didn't and it won't in the future. Players gripped by this mania start many new games each day and any stats concerning their habits are soon out of date and worthless.

Anyway that's my 2 pence... shall we "hug it out" now?

Cheers! but no Bud for me (King of Beers? Queer tasting stuff... Queen of Beers more like).

You broke the mug.

Ray, I still don't see the problem. I do not support an upper limit on games.

I see the entire issue as the desire of users to have some level of control over what happens here on the website, when fundamentally there will always be some lack of control. I still think that time per move is a much more useful statistic than a hard upper limit.

Perhaps one can have a formula, like they do on FICS, where you can specify your maximum allowed for your opponents? If such an item were implemented, then how would it interact with tournaments then?

-- Oswald Cobblepot

By this logic I presume that they're also counterpointless?

Stick with me here...

Point-counter-point conversations are pointless.

Further, counter-point-point-counter-point conversations are pointless.

However, counterpointless conversations are also pointless because they have no original point.

One can have pointless counterpoint conversations and pointless point-counter-point conversations, but not counterpoint-point-counterpoint conversations.

Get the point?

Ozzie,

you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

I grow weary of this debate, and unwilling to reiterate the points I have already made.

None of the issues I have raised have recieved a proper answer (based on logic and reason), merely disagreement based on personal preference.

I cannot continue in this vein, I've had my fill.

All the best

Ray

I agree 100%.....there should be a limit and for some one pull that crap while in a tourament is just plan disrespeat and a wast of everyones time the problem is that if there was a limit goosers with to much time on there hands will always find a new way to slow things down

I agree 100%.....there should be a limit and for some one pull that crap while in a tourament is just plan disrespeat and a wast of everyones time the problem is that if there was a limit goosers with to much time on there hands will always find a new way to slow things down

is a gooser a looser addicted to google?

The point-coutner in your point/counterpoint point assessment as it pertains to the number of the times you used the word point is at 19.

The point-counter in your point/counterpoint point assessment as it pertains to the number of valid points, on the other hand, is still at zero.

Geez - you actually took the time to count them...?

So what's your point?

I don't really have one, but I could if I wanted to.

That's my point.

You don't have a point.

But you could if you wanted to.

So why bother with a reply?

That must have been your point...