Originally posted by FabianFnas
What kind of vacation system do you want, Doctor? What do you think is the best?

One that doesn't discriminate against non-subs?

Originally posted by Nordlys
One that doesn't discriminate against non-subs?

Any vacation system that doesn't discriminate against non-subs? No, I think he is more specific than that, our dear Doctor.

But in this sense I agree with him. A sub shouldn't be allowed to win a non-sub of the only reason that he has more vacation days to begin with.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Any vacation system that doesn't discriminate against non-subs? No, I think he is more specific than that, our dear Doctor.

But in this sense I agree with him. A sub shouldn't be allowed to win a non-sub of the only reason that he has more vacation days to begin with.

Whilst I take your point re equality I am not happy with the idea that non subs get the same treatment as subccribers.
The idea of a non sub is to give them the opportunity to see what is available and then decide if they wish to subscribe or leave.
Non subs should be kicked out after 6 months if not subscribing but have 100% access to all facilities eg clans etc.
or
Non subs should have basic access to 6 games with no frills, no anaylsis board, no notes, no messaging etc indefinately.

Originally posted by Mctayto
Whilst I take your point re equality I am not happy with the idea that non subs get the same treatment as subccribers.
The idea of a non sub is to give them the opportunity to see what is available and then decide if they wish to subscribe or leave.
Non subs should be kicked out after 6 months if not subscribing but have 100% access to all facilities eg c ...[text shortened]... ic access to 6 games with no frills, no anaylsis board, no notes, no messaging etc indefinately.

Neither am I. The non-subs should be able to sniff the advantages of being a subscriber, but that's it.
But every game should be on equal terms. This is not the case if subs can go on vacation and let his game go to timeout with immunity, when the non-sub cannot do exactly that. That gives subs an advantage over the non-subs.

I think RHP are very generous with the non-subs as it is.

Is it this our friend, the Doctor, thinks about, when writing his last remarks to me?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Neither am I. The non-subs should be able to sniff the advantages of being a subscriber, but that's it.
But every game should be on equal terms. This is not the case if subs can go on vacation and let his game go to timeout with immunity, when the non-sub cannot do exactly that. That gives subs an advantage over the non-subs.

I think RHP are very gen ...[text shortened]... it is.

Is it this our friend, the Doctor, thinks about, when writing his last remarks to me?

The simply answer then is make it that it is not possible for a non sub to play a sub therefore equality all round 😉

Originally posted by Mctayto
The simply answer then is make it that it is not possible for a non sub to play a sub therefore equality all round 😉

Do you think so? I don't. 🙂

I think that every game should be fair, once it has started.
If the vacation system doesn't permit that, then we have to change it, in order of fairness.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Do you think so? I don't. 🙂

I think that every game should be fair, once it has started.
If the vacation system doesn't permit that, then we have to change it, in order of fairness.

Other sites don't allow non subs to play subs so a possible solution.
Is it what I want - NO
However, if you allow any form of vacation system there will always be those that object to whatever system there is.
Option 2 - get rid of the vacation system then all is fair except those that use the system will object
End result : [b]
You can please some of the people all of the time
You can please all of the people some of the time
You can NEVER please ALL the people ALL of the time

Originally posted by Mctayto
You can please some of the people all of the time
You can please all of the people some of the time
You can NEVER please ALL the people ALL of the time

You're a wise man, Mctayto, indeed you are.

I'm happy whatever it is, if it's only fair for me. And it is, because I'm a sub. 😉

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You're a wise man, Mctayto, indeed you are.

I'm happy whatever it is, if it's only fair for me. And it is, because I'm a sub. 😉

😉

Originally posted by FabianFnas

But every game should be on equal terms. This is not the case if subs can go on vacation and let his game go to timeout with immunity, when the non-sub cannot do exactly that. That gives subs an advantage over the non-subs.

I think RHP are very generous with the non-subs as it is.

Exactly as you have written there FF.

I also agree that the site is excellent towards non-subs generally apart from this one major thing.

It doesn't concern me personally very much - it's just offends my 'British sense of fair play' and anyway can you imagine an OTB tournament trying to apply rules like that?
🙂

Everyone says they want the site to be as near to real/proper/whatever chess as possible.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But every game should be on equal terms. This is not the case if subs can go on vacation and let his game go to timeout with immunity, when the non-sub cannot do exactly that. That gives subs an advantage over the non-subs.

I think RHP are very generous with the non-subs as it is.

Is it this our friend, the Doctor, thinks about, when writing his last remarks to me?

Something must be done to offset the low-gameload advantage of non-subs. Ya know, maybe the guy who's playing 100 games at once might need some of those vacation days to keep up with the guy who's only playing 6 at once. 😵

Originally posted by SwissGambit
.....maybe the guy who's playing 100 games at once might need some of those vacation days to keep up with the guy who's only playing 6 at once. 😵

That's by their own choice though.



This may seem a minor detail to subscribers [well, they are the ones with the advantage in the game. 🙄 ] but can you honestly say it makes for a fair game?

Answer: nope!

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
It doesn't concern me personally very much - it's just offends my 'British sense of fair play' and anyway can you imagine an OTB tournament trying to apply rules like that?

I asked the Tournament Director of the last local OTB tourney if I could play as a non-subscriber. "Non-subscriber, what the hell is that?" he replied. "Oh, someone who prefers to play a limited number of games to try the tournament environment before committing to pay entry fees," I said. I'm afraid I got laughed out of the tournament hall. 😞😞

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I asked the Tournament Director of the last local OTB tourney if I could play as a non-subscriber. "Non-subscriber, what the hell is that?" he replied. "Oh, someone who prefers to play a limited number of games to try the tournament environment before committing to pay entry fees," I said. I'm afraid I got laughed out of the tournament hall. 😞😞

I don't want to play tournaments here.
In fact I don't want anything extra - I want my opponents to have the same rules while we are playing, thats all.

Not much to ask is it? 🙁

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I asked the Tournament Director of the last local OTB tourney if I could play as a non-subscriber. "Non-subscriber, what the hell is that?" he replied. "Oh, someone who prefers to play a limited number of games to try the tournament environment before committing to pay entry fees," I said. I'm afraid I got laughed out of the tournament hall. 😞😞

Or… You happen across a OTB tourney on my patch and are given only half the time on the clock as everyone else because your not a member of the national organising body!


Giving paying members more privileges and features is one thing. Giving them a tangible advantage in a game makes a mockery of the rating system.

Perhaps the answer is for games between members and non-members to be unrated.