account sitting issues..new rule? <updated - see 1st post>

[James Vazquez]

Why not send the various options to all active memebers and have them vote on it as far as team games have a deadline date for responses to votes and from that detrermine the rule all sides have valid points for the most part(JR being that most part) but in the end all will be affected those that currently play teams and those that may start in the future.

not meaning to be rude or elitist here but i am not sure this makes sense....
I think that babysitters may be more of a burning issue to those with more than 4 games going at any one time. therefore the result may be quite different to the consensus here?
Who knows what the vote could bring if you get 10,000 fremiums randomly voting on an issue which never occurred to them. ( i do not know if this is true or not and genuinely no offence intended.)

I could be wrong and i truly do not wish to say Fremiums do not have a right to a view but we should be careful what we wish for here. It may not be akin to the classic vote which was very much the same for us all and affected us all equally. It is more like forwarding a motion on who the best Pokemon monster is in the Pichuchu clan Forum and then asking the rest of the site to vote on it!

Just real quick if anything it would mean more because we have less games to balance out with and the team games we play we cannot afford to miss a turn on...

This a veiled attempt to dictate who gets a voice here. Everyone has a voice here. Whether you play one team game or onehundred the same rules apply. No matter premium or freemium.

hey bulshy-pants... i thought you and i were not posting any more.

it is not thinly veiled at all James, It is what it is! i attempted to be as honest as i could be and to be as bloody humble as I possibly could whilst still voicing a concern!

stop trying to escalate this into an argument please.. if you want this to dissolve into mud-slinging due to your own agenda, then fine! but do not thinly veil it by passing the blame to me please.

i didnt attack you jiminiski so keep your comments relative to the thread. i simply reiterated the facts.

[jiminski]

i didnt attack you jiminiski so keep your comments relative to the thread. i simply reiterated the facts.

Yes you did James..

To keep you on thread; i was merely voicing my concern that a universal vote may not be relevant. Indeed that the people most affected by the babysitting rule are those with more than 4 games, this is logical. Yes that does mean Premiums, not because I do not ascribe value to Freemiums but because i was uncertain that it is 'a burning issue' to them. I think i was pretty clear that i was not certain of this but simply voicing a cautionary note.

Your argument seeks to turn me into a 'bigot' of sorts. But your premise is like calling a Doctor who looks for sickle-cell only in people of African Origin, racist.

Saying this, Solomon replied with his point of view which i take on-board and it may be the rule not the exception.. who knows!?

Please, no more cheap shots mate... let's be constructive.

[James Vazquez]

I personally dont believe a site wide vote is warranted or would be productive either. That being said someone may have misunderstood your comments to mean that only a limited few have the knowledge or experience to contribute to a solution or discussion of the issue.

[jiminski]

I personally dont believe a site wide vote is warranted or would be productive either. That being said someone may have misunderstood your comments to mean that only a limited few have the knowledge or experience to contribute to a solution or discussion of the issue.

heheh we often see what we want to James.
so you don't even want the vote but you are fighting for the right to have it? very noble

but regarding misinterpretation of my words; i think most people are more astute than you give them credit for.

[wicked]

Hey guys. If a poll is deemed warranted, one will be done how admin best sees fit. There's no need to argue over the little details like that. You both want what's best for the site, as does everyone here. Keep that in mind and attack the problem please, not each other.

[jiminski]

Hey guys. If a poll is deemed warranted, one will be done how admin best sees fit. There's no need to argue over the little details like that. You both want what's best for the site, as does everyone here. Keep that in mind and attack the problem please, not each other.

he started it mum!

[Soloman]

Hey guys. If a poll is deemed warranted, one will be done how admin best sees fit. There's no need to argue over the little details like that. You both want what's best for the site, as does everyone here. Keep that in mind and attack the problem please, not each other.

he started it mum!

I did not mean to you elitest lol

[jiminski]

Hey guys. If a poll is deemed warranted, one will be done how admin best sees fit. There's no need to argue over the little details like that. You both want what's best for the site, as does everyone here. Keep that in mind and attack the problem please, not each other.

he started it mum!

I did not mean to you elitest lol

hehe! are we there yet?.. i need to go pee!


but really where actually are we; close to Disney World or 4 truck-stops from Wichita? ...

Is almost everyone almost satisfied with the new Twill proposal? (in short: team-mates can play as babysitter but only as long as the other team agrees in chat)

On reflection i think a unanimous agreement in chat may be too restrictive; not everyone looks in chat and we may be dealing with non English speakers too? I think it would be fairer if it is allowable if 1 member agrees but restricted if at anytime any opposition player says "no!".

[Timminz]

On reflection i think a unanimous agreement in chat may be too restrictive; not everyone looks in chat and we may be dealing with non English speakers too? I think it would be fairer if it is allowable if 1 member agrees but restricted if at anytime any opposition player says "no!".

Or, as long as the request is put forward, the opposition must deny if they are against it. If they just don't post a response, could that be an assumed agreement?

[jiminski]

On reflection i think a unanimous agreement in chat may be too restrictive; not everyone looks in chat and we may be dealing with non English speakers too? I think it would be fairer if it is allowable if 1 member agrees but restricted if at anytime any opposition player says "no!".

Or, as long as the request is put forward, the opposition must deny if they are against it. If they just don't post a response, could that be an assumed agreement?

Well i kind of like that Timz... working on the premise that if they care about it, surely they can take the time to say 'no'!

[Timminz]

On reflection i think a unanimous agreement in chat may be too restrictive; not everyone looks in chat and we may be dealing with non English speakers too? I think it would be fairer if it is allowable if 1 member agrees but restricted if at anytime any opposition player says "no!".

Or, as long as the request is put forward, the opposition must deny if they are against it. If they just don't post a response, could that be an assumed agreement?

Well i kind of like that Timz... working on the premise that if they care about it, surely they can take the time to say 'no'!

Exactly. If a team wants the option (in unforeseen circumstances, is all I'm referring to), they are required to make the request, and if another team wants to deny it, they must do so.

[jiminski]

On reflection i think a unanimous agreement in chat may be too restrictive; not everyone looks in chat and we may be dealing with non English speakers too? I think it would be fairer if it is allowable if 1 member agrees but restricted if at anytime any opposition player says "no!".

Or, as long as the request is put forward, the opposition must deny if they are against it. If they just don't post a response, could that be an assumed agreement?

Well i kind of like that Timz... working on the premise that if they care about it, surely they can take the time to say 'no'!

Exactly. If a team wants the option (in unforeseen circumstances, is all I'm referring to), they are required to make the request, and if another team wants to deny it, they must do so.

well the point is, under the new rule, you could just ask the question at the beginning of the game "is it ok if team-mates babysit if one of us is away?"
but the babysitter would have to announce it in chat again if you actually use the facility.

Then if the opposition team is against it, they can announce refusal in chat at any time.
But as you say if they do not expressly refuse it is taken as acceptance.

sounds good to me mate.

[wicked]

Silence should never imply consent. The onus is on the players requesting approval to get it, not the other way around.

[jiminski]

Silence should never imply consent. The onus is on the players requesting approval to get it, not the other way around.

Ok Wicked, i do see your point in a sense but i think the proposal of unanimous consent from the opposition is unworkable. It would just take 1 non-talker to undermine the whole process.
Blimey i've played in teams with Dupa in about 20 games and he's said about 4 words to me in sum-total (i don't think i should take it personally...) Some people just don't come here to use Game chat.

[owenshooter]

ok... so, to make everyone happy, what if the third player who is sitting in on all of my games or all the the other teams games as understudy (mine waiting for his shot to play danny zuko to brett or coopers sandy), pops into chat and ok's that baby sitting to occur for my or the other team? i mean, we are getting an entire platoon of players to follow along in all of our games (sequential), just to make sure the cheating and gained advantage through baby sitting, which OCCURS IN FREESTYLE AND FREESTYLE ONLY, does not occur... twill already stated it is a PERCEIVED ADVANTAGE and there has yet to be an example of actual cheating in sequential team game or any TRUE ADVANTAGE shown. sooo, let's just go ahead and make it even more difficult for the flow of team sequential games to keep moving. this is just getting more and more ridiculous. some people act as if every team game uses a baby sitter in some sort of respect. this is just not true. sure, there are a few people this is truly targeted at, that abuse this system in FREESTYLE TEAM PLAY, but the doubles world overall is not a haven for cheats. the second amended rule is a great step forward, and much better than the original rule. and it would be really nice if people continue to make constructive suggestions to help this thing get resolved.-0

p.s.-anyone remember when this issue was "resolved" and the sticky pulled, because the official unwritten CC rule was so damn clear? we have come a very long way!!!

p.p.s.-i have played team games in which a word was not passed between teams or members of my own team. i've gone well over a month playing team games in which i never put chat into a game or took a turn on skype... seems impossible if not ridiculous to get a unanimous YES for this... if you are going to make a third player NOT ON THE TEAM, responsible for following games incase he is asked to at some point in the next year, he should be able to play the turn if one player on the other team agrees to it.

[Timminz]

if you are going to make a third player NOT ON THE TEAM, responsible for following games incase he is asked to at some point in the next year, he should be able to play the turn if one player on the other team agrees to it.

With the proposed rule, having a third party sitter is totally legit. There would be no need for agreement from anyone.

[jiminski]

you can have a non-team Babysitter without agreement from the other team under the amended rule Owen. It is only Team Babysitter which requires agreement... but unanimity for agreement on that will not work.

[Timminz]

unanimity for agreement on that will not work.

exactly. Which is why, I think, someone should be required to say "no" for team-sitters to not be allowed.

[Soloman]

unanimity for agreement on that will not work.

exactly. Which is why, I think, someone should be required to say "no" for team-sitters to not be allowed.

I agree if this goes into effect I maystart to play team games again and get my Brother to come back he is currently boycotting the site (even though I bought him a premium a while ago{I knew I should have got it for me[oh well have to wait till I start work agains and can afford it]instead of the brat} for a belated birthday present) due to issues like this and mostly because of JR's false accusations against us...but anyways I hope that the objection would be on the other team contrary to what Wicked(no offense intended) said and that no voiced objection would be a sign of acceptance.

[yeti_c]

unanimity for agreement on that will not work.

exactly. Which is why, I think, someone should be required to say "no" for team-sitters to not be allowed.

I disagree with this as Wicked stated - it is the onus on the team wishing to get the priviledge to have a same team babysitter - to ensure there is approval...

However I do agree that 1 person can vote for a team. But a single No - means a team No. Regardless of majority.

C.

[jiminski]

unanimity for agreement on that will not work.

exactly. Which is why, I think, someone should be required to say "no" for team-sitters to not be allowed.

I disagree with this as Wicked stated - it is the onus on the team wishing to get the priviledge to have a same team babysitter - to ensure there is approval...

However I do agree that 1 person can vote for a team. But a single No - means a team No. Regardless of majority.

C.

I am in complete concord Yeti!

[Timminz]

unanimity for agreement on that will not work.

exactly. Which is why, I think, someone should be required to say "no" for team-sitters to not be allowed.

I disagree with this as Wicked stated - it is the onus on the team wishing to get the priviledge to have a same team babysitter - to ensure there is approval...

However I do agree that 1 person can vote for a team. But a single No - means a team No. Regardless of majority.

C.

I am in complete concord Yeti!

yes. A single "no" means no, but what about no response at all? I just think that anyone who is against it should have to answer the question. If one team goes through the trouble of asking permission, and the other team doesn't want that option available to them, they should have to say something. I'm being misunderstood by a lot of mods here. Twill thinks I'm promoting shoplifting, and Wicked just never seems to understand what I'm talking about.

I think a better way to curb abuse would be to make a specific reference to the number of turns someone can take for their teammate (once they've been given permission, of course). I see no reason why a sitter should need to take more than one turn per day. Sitting should only be used to keep from missing turns, so once a day would be sufficient. I can easily see how someone taking 3-4 or more turns for their teammate in a single day, could be seen as abusing the privilege.

[yeti_c]

No response is a No.

unanimity for agreement on that will not work.

exactly. Which is why, I think, someone should be required to say "no" for team-sitters to not be allowed.

I disagree with this as Wicked stated - it is the onus on the team wishing to get the priviledge to have a same team babysitter - to ensure there is approval...

C.

C.

[wicked]

yes. A single "no" means no, but what about no response at all? I just think that anyone who is against it should have to answer the question. If one team goes through the trouble of asking permission, and the other team doesn't want that option available to them, they should have to say something. I'm being misunderstood by a lot of mods here. Twill thinks I'm promoting shoplifting, and Wicked just never seems to understand what I'm talking about.

Tim, just because we may not necessarily agree with your points doesn't mean they're not understood.

[jiminski]

yes. A single "no" means no, but what about no response at all? I just think that anyone who is against it should have to answer the question. If one team goes through the trouble of asking permission, and the other team doesn't want that option available to them, they should have to say something.....

Well ok mate.. I am flip-flopping on this! Not because i do not also think that the onus should be upon the person who cares so greatly that they do not agree to team babysitters, to utter 1 word in chat. ("no" .. even easier without quotation marks!) but because there are various bees in various bonnets and a compromise sounds like the only sensible course.


I think all that may happen is:
if the rule remains based upon the onus of written acceptance but is amended so to not require unanimity.
We will have to create a TEAM BABYSITTER thread in Callouts, stating that:

In order to play in the posted private games, you must agree to team babysitters and post acknowledgement in every game chat. Failure to Post acceptance will result in being named on the front page of the thread and members may chose to withhold password or add you to their Foe list.

Now, unfortunately this will cause even less social interaction on the site, fewer Public games and less choice of games for You and I Timz... i have no idea if it will be significant but what will be will be.