Originally posted by The Slow PawnTo no surprise :-) I completely agree with you
I do agree with you regarding the clan business - Once you haven't got a star you shouldn't be allowed in clan (general speaking) - and I'd say automatically kicked - The same applies to Sieges -
But
I don't think that it is fair for people NOT to play out their tournament games - With people like Skeeter who move once every 7 days (on purp ...[text shortened]... ournaments once you're starless - and in effect you have supported the site)
Regards
Boris
Originally posted by ToeI beleive once you pay to be in a tourny you should go as far as you can star or not.
[b]Clans
Trackhead's recent pronouncement that he intends to keep within the clan system (as a leader to boot) without a subscription raises the issue: for how long should a non-subscriber be allowed to retain their clan status?
Off the top of my head, I would think:
(1) without a star, a player can be assigned no more clan matches
(2) without a star; ...[text shortened]... s this should be in three threads but there you go.
Edits: I still can't spell siege...[/b]
this thread certainly is continuing to grow, about the same speed as my number of games are hehe. Anyway I still agree with those who say that if you cencel or your subscription runs out you should automatically be removed from clans and any siege ques, but allowed to finish all tournaments you are already in. I could see being removed from a siege itself as you could stay in that forever but since it has set rules not sure about that one. Anyway, its all just a bunch of talk not like anyone cares hat we think anyway :-) There's a clear whole in the system so hey why not exploit it since nothing will probably be done about for like 2 years anyway.
Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21well you're kind of negative :-(
this thread certainly is continuing to grow, about the same speed as my number of games are hehe. Anyway I still agree with those who say that if you cencel or your subscription runs out you should automatically be removed from clans and any siege ques, but allowed to finish all tournaments you are already in. I could see being removed from a siege itsel ...[text shortened]... tem so hey why not exploit it since nothing will probably be done about for like 2 years anyway.
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 219738
Originally posted by BuGHoUsEMASTERIs there anything else you would like me to pay for you? Buy you a new car maybe? Holiday? The site is here because of the subscribers. How long do you think you would be able to play chess for if no-one paid?
All you "stared" players is complain about non stars well, if it weren't for the non stars then there would he less then 1/3 left of RHP...
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 219738
If someone is hard up they could ask Russ for a stay of execution. If they are just not paying up to 'extract the urine' then I agree with the original post.
Also, the max games limit of 6 should be imposed such that they cannot start new games anyway.
Trackhead, saying that nothing will be done for two years is asking for a reaction.
Originally posted by Grandmaster baterThat might be why he said it. One method of clearing up holes in a game system is to abuse them as blatantly and loudly as possible.
If someone is hard up they could ask Russ for a stay of execution. If they are just not paying up to 'extract the urine' then I agree with the original post.
Also, the max games limit of 6 should be imposed such that they cannot start new games anyway.
Trackhead, saying that nothing will be done for two years is asking for a reaction.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTrue that is one way though I find on this site it really does take like a year or two for the problem to be gotten around to. And yes I dare someone to fix it lol, but only because no one will :-)
That might be why he said it. One method of clearing up holes in a game system is to abuse them as blatantly and loudly as possible.
I agree with you guys on some of these issues, although I think some kind of grace period is required before kicking anyone out of sieges/clans/tournaments.
My brother paid for my subscription about 2 odd years ago. I didn't have a credit card at the time. I thought he paid with his cc.
Then one day about a month ago I log on to RHP and find that I've lost my star - turns out he paid via postal order and my subscription ran out.
If I lost all my privelages I would've been kicked out of all the siege queues I was in, lost my 2 clan memberships and my clan leadership of Gonzo.
This wouldn't have been fair as it was an honest mistake and I rectified it ASAP.
*
Tournaments should be finished, but obviously you wouldn't be allowed to enter new ones.
*
Sieges and clan membership need a grace peroiod of a month or so, giving the person a chance to rectify the situation. Maybe the person should not be able to move in any clan or siege games (suspended) until the subscription is paid again. This could work for tournaments as well.
*
If the person is a clan member, he should not be available for challenges and should not be able to initiate any new challenges as a clan leader. The grace period should work here as well.
If the subscription is not paid within the grace period again, he is kicked out automatically.
Russ said he wanted to increse monthly subscription fees. I think this will certainly stop most, if not all, of the system circumvention. Make the monthly subs $20-$25.
Seems I was right: about the 'should have been three posts' issue anyway. 🙂
We appear to have a general consensus on seiges / clans (with a bit of lee-way for the unwarey before drastic steps are taken).
On the tourney front there is an implicit majority for 'no further rounds' but a growing opposition.
So unless there's sudden opposition to the seige/clan take, we can dedicate the rest of this thread to the tourney question.
Fire away folks.
Originally posted by ToeI totally agree ...
Seems I was right: about the 'should have been three posts' issue anyway. 🙂
We appear to have a general consensus on seiges / clans (with a bit of lee-way for the unwarey before drastic steps are taken).
On the tourney front there is an implicit majority for 'no further rounds' but a growing opposition.
So unless there's sudden opposition to the seige/clan take, we can dedicate the rest of this thread to the tourney question.
Fire away folks.
Clan
Starless players should
a) finish their current clan games
b) should automatically kicked from the clan
c) if they are leading it (sorry to say) but then Russ would need to assign a new leader - They should however automatically become 'white' the day they become starless
Saying that, I would give a player a timeout of 1 month to re-subscribe. That is time enough to make up your mind whether you want to re-subscribe, whether you had difficulites in sending the money etc.
Sieges
a) Let the player finish the current game
b) Remove that player from all queues (automatically)
c) In case the player won the siege game, have the lost player play forward as the winner (some kind of a lucky winner) - That way sieges wouldn't be disrupted
Tournaments
Needless to say that a star-less player can't enter new tournaments but should be allowed to progress into the next round. My reasons for this are as follows
a) You only pay to play a tournament once - Hence if you entered when you are subscriber you should really be allowed to have an equal chance to win the tournament then anyone else (Imagine it's the final round and you're automatically awarded the win as your opponent lost the star ??)
b) People like Skeeter consciously disrupt tournaments
http://www.redhotpawn.com/tournament/view.php?tid=249
I'm not being funny but I bet there are lots of tournaments where Mrs. Skeeter deliberately moves once in a blue moon (in the vain hope to get a time-out). To support my point this particular tournament has 'finished' the first round except Skeeter for over 2 months now !!!
c) And last but not least what do you do if 2 non-subscribers are in the final ?? Will you have a tournament without a winner ??
My two cents on this
Regards
Boris
Originally posted by The Slow PawnLast and probably most significant: a good boundary test that one. Can't see any logical way round it so I'm switching sides on the tourney question: leave them in it.
And last but not least what do you do if 2 non-subscribers are in the final ?? Will you have a tournament without a winner ??
Who says arguments can't be constructive?
Originally posted by Toelol ... wow, did you just call me constructive (a metal-head ??) lol
Last and probably most significant: a good boundary test that one. Can't see any logical way round it so I'm switching sides on the tourney question: leave them in it.
Who says arguments can't be constructive?
and hey, where's my rec ;-)
Boris
b) People like Skeeter consciously disrupt tournaments
http://www.redhotpawn.com/tournament/view.php?tid=249
I'm not being funny but I bet there are lots of tournaments where Mrs. Skeeter deliberately moves once in a blue moon (in the vain hope to get a time-out). To support my point this particular tournament has 'finished' the first round except Skeeter for over 2 months now !!!
The above is a part of a post by The Slow Pawn
http://www.redhotpawn.com/tournament/view.php?tid=57
This tournament (only 1 round!) started in september 2003
I think the last non-skeeter game ended 8 to 10 months ago..
So I'm waiting for my tournament victory for at least 8 months now!