|
|
|
Topic: please comment on 50 game rule
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
A distortion of what?!?
|
|
|
Comments under this post might be releveant to this post:http://queenalice.com/topic.php?id=6423
|
|
|
| Richerby wrote: A distortion of what?!? |
| Gil wrote: I thought who I had replies this. |
I don't see anywhere where you've said what these distortions are, other than the one guy who resigned without playing. I've already explained that he's left the site and that the fifty-game rule actually encourages people to abandon games like this.
What distortions or problems (it doesn't matter which word you want to use) are caused by people playing several hundred games simultaneously?
|
|
|
The rule was implemented to prevent the "disease" from spreading. The rule is on a "test basis" and I am sure Miguel will come up with the best solution.
|
|
|
perple, if you don't care how many games anyone is playing, how can you possibly object to playing tournament games against people based on the number of games they're playing? It's either one or the other.
|
richerby, I believe it is clear where I'm coming from with this. You can argue and imply that I'm being ridiculous, my perspective remains. People who had hundreds of games going I didn't want to play. Whether you can possibly understand that, I don't care. It's the way it is. This thread is to comment on the rule. I believe it's a good rule.
| perple, in your specific case, why didn't you simply create a private tournament inviting only the people you wanted? |
Sure I could have done that and so avoided the issue. I didn't want to. And I still think that having the same players in EVERY tournament was not a good thing, especially when these players exhibited erratic behaviors.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next |
|
|
|
