FICS Teamleague

Board

Teamleague Forum

Scheduling ProcessProposalsIndex ->

posted at 2017-10-01 15:08 by schachbjm

Hi,

it just might be a coincidence or a personal feeling, however I think that scheduling system is not working as good as at the time when I started playing TL.
For instance, our team had one round where we could have won just by claiming forfeit wins for no-communication and no-shows (3 out of 4 games).

It happens quite often that one or in some cases even both players do not contact before initial deadline is passing. This season there were 17 unplayed draws and I suppose late scheduling is the reason for it in many cases.

I do not think that rules are the reason for this issue, it is by us players to change it!
Maybe the captains can remind their players to communicate as early as possible, especially since it just takes a few minutes to do so.
Speaking for myself, I am checking my calender Monday or Tuesday in the evening; and on Wednesday morning I just copy my prepared text in the game forum.

Best regards
schachbjm

posted at 2017-10-02 09:52 by turamon

as a deputy cpt. atm and as a former captain I'd like to say that you can't look into the head of your players. some of them, especially new players are hardly known by you and your team mates so you can't do anything about it. from what I can tell, most cpts are reminding their players and a lot of them are stepping in if their players do not negotiate.

I played tournaments on other sites and one site obliged their players to give good times during the week when they could "always" play. registering for a tourney was not possible without giving those times. and if you declined an offer that was falling into your "always times" you lost the game. so this would be one way to deal with it in a better way.

I know that obligation and the threat of a game loss does not work any magic. but I feel that a lot of players are making extended use of the rules as they are for now. like starting negotiations on Thursday 21:59 server time.

so I have another suggestion for a rule change: why not set the first deadline, the initial contact deadline, 24hours after the game forums are set up? why wait 48 hours? 24 hours are more time than enough for someone who knew in advance - and schachbjm pointed that out greatly - that a game is coming. so Wednesday 22:00 server time would be initial contact deadline. this could lead to a quicker start of negotiating.

posted at 2017-10-07 10:25 by tseltzer

Yes, to improve the situation with regards to earlier scheduling of games it would seem that the league would need some combination of the following:

1. Greater initiative by players to begin negotiations early (as advocated by schachbjm)
2. A change in the rules to move deadlines during the week (as proposed by turamon)
3. Stricter enforcement of the current/modified rules

Unfortunately, I don't see any of those 3 happening.

For an extended discussion of the 2nd point from above, you may see: http://teamleague.org/board.php?page=board&action=topicshow&forumid=2&forum=Proposals&topic=Time+for+negotiations&topicid=1341

especially the excellent points made by kurumim!

posted at 2017-10-08 01:29 by smallblackcat

Yeah I haven't responded to this thread until now because most of what I have to say is covered in the thread tseltzer refers to.

Regarding the call for greater initiative in beginning negotiations, I suggest that as captains we could be more proactive in encouraging our players to contact. I'm not going to name names, but I can think of a couple of players who are teammates of people in this very thread who could do with some encouragement, as well as some players I have captained who I have been reluctant to 'nag'.

Re: moving the deadlines, I am ok with this in principle, and it seems as if there's quite a lot of support for the idea. I'd like to take some more 'soundings' on this issue before implementing any change, especially as we have a short turnaround before T69.

Re: stricter enforcement, I am not so keen on this, some of the reasons for which I explained in the previous thread. Briefly, while stricter rules may deter some unwelcome behaviour (tardy negotiating), I fear it would encourage 'rules lawyers' trying to win free points. This is by no means the 'official view' of TL staff, it's just my personal opinion.

posted at 2017-10-08 12:21 by joshuar

As in the other thread, I would support earlier communication deadlines.

posted at 2017-10-09 01:32 by smallblackcat

There seems to be a lot of support for moving the deadlines forward, and personally I have no objection other than the potential short-term disruption. There are also some programming issues - the automated reminders and so forth are all set up for the current set of deadlines. However I suspect we can work towards these changes for next year.

posted at 2017-11-13 07:16 by herrahuu

Hi!

Since Turamon talked to me about moving first deadline 24 hours back, I just wanted to make sure if I understand this discussion correctly. Are the deadlines moved forward or backward?

I myself think it is very bad to move the deadlines forward, since there are many people who are busy abd can not hold their calendars open only for such case "that someone happens to give their suggestions on the forum late in the week". The current deadlines give at least some fair treatment to such people. Moving the deadlines closer to tuesday 22 would be only way for change for me, if the change is needed.

posted at 2017-11-13 08:27 by kurumim

I assume you got confused by 'forward' and 'backward'. Forward here means shorter deadlines, specifically 24 h shorter.

"Moving the deadlines closer to tuesday 22 would be only way for change for me" — that's exactly what was proposed, and you've agreed on it: http://teamleague.org/board.php?page=board&action=topicshow&forumid=2&forum=Proposals&topic=Time+for+negotiations&topicid=1341

posted at 2017-11-13 09:02 by herrahuu

Yes! Exactly. Thanks for clarification.

posted at 2017-11-13 09:05 by herrahuu

Hmm. I still don't see where smallblackcat talks about stricter deadlines:

smallblackcat:
"Re: stricter enforcement, I am not so keen on this, some of the reasons for which I explained in the previous thread. Briefly, while stricter rules may deter some unwelcome behaviour (tardy negotiating), I fear it would encourage 'rules lawyers' trying to win free points. This is by no means the 'official view' of TL staff, it's just my personal opinion."

posted at 2017-11-13 11:11 by kurumim

Please go back to tseltzer's post and see the three measures he suggested. The passage you quoted is sbc's comment on the third one, stricter enforcement of the current/modified rules. Item 2 is the one related to changes in the contact deadlines.

posted at 2017-11-13 21:18 by smallblackcat

It's a bit confusing, because we've now had discussions about this issue (and related issues) over several different threads.

tseltzer's thoughts about stricter enforcement of scheduling rules is fleshed out in more detail here (2nd last post on the thread): http://teamleague.org/board.php?page=board&action=topicshow&forumid=2&forum=Proposals&topic=Time+for+negotiations&topicid=1341

There is also a bit of back and forth between kurumim and myself earlier in the same thread. I'll just re-post my main thought here:
"In general I see the purpose of the scheduling rules as creating a framework within which people can negotiate in good faith. Some people might take advantage of how lax the rules are, but unfortunately those some people would probably be inclined to take advantage of stricter rules too."

posted at 2017-11-13 23:34 by herrahuu

Ok. I give up. :)

posted at 2017-11-14 09:42 by herrahuu

I still came back and got it. :) Thank you.

posted at 2017-11-14 15:12 by Turamon

smallblackcat, besides clarifying what has been said in the post, can you make a statement on what TL admins are planing to do? Any plans for TL 70 or TL 71 to cut the first contact deadline in half so that it would only last 24 hours? and if so will the second deadline remain with a length of 24 hours too?

just asking because there seems to be enough space for interpretation obviously.

posted at 2017-11-15 21:07 by smallblackcat

I can't give a firm timetable on this yet, as I need to have more discussions with my fellow admins.

posted at 2017-11-17 14:20 by turamon

ok thanks a lot!

posted at 2024-02-16 09:33 by pchesso

Most players know the requirement to post three time offers in the game forum. I'd like to remind everyone that there are more recommendations in the handbook (and rules in the statutes), which I personally have found to be at least as important. Examples include: to start negotiations as soon as possible after the pairings are posted to the website, and in particular, to respond within 24 hours of the previous post (the sooner the better).

The TD welcome messages aren't read by everyone. I would appreciate if fellow captains could point all players to this topic every once in a while. Several players are violating these rules literally all the time, unfortunately also on my own teams. Too many players here have to wait 60+ hours for a response in the game forum (and for their opponent on the server, once the game is finally arranged). It kills the enjoyment of the league. Please, let's all make an effort to negotiate times quickly, so that we can look forward to the games the whole week.

For reference:
Handbook
Statutes

Thank you!

posted at 2024-02-17 11:21 by blore

While it is clearly stated that play can take place into the second week, it appears one is sometimes at the mercy of the opponent agreeing to the second week. Also, I am not sure why the anxiety and hurry to schedule the game on Wednesday. Thursday or Friday is perfectly fine. Yes, games need to be scheduled and played. The concern should be about games not getting scheduled or played. I see absolutely no reason why threatening players and advancing the deadline is going to make any difference. Largely games are to be played over a week and in some rare cases a fortnight. I don't see the rush to insist on scheduling the games on Tuesday or Wednesday. Also, what exactly is the problem if a player makes offers at 21 59 on Thursday. Personally, I think we are focussing on the wrong things. Hopefully more players are focussed on playing the games and less on jumping at a 21 59 or 22 03 posting to claim wins. That is pretty orthogonal to the ideal spirit of play.

posted at 2024-02-17 14:46 by turamon

you don't see the rush?

ok most of my players have a life. they are able to make space for one long standard chess game in a week's span. they need to know as early as possible when the game will take place so a) they can fit the game into their family life, hobbies and work schedule and b) they can make use of the times they offer during negotiations and block in their lifes but that are not made use of.

TL is not really attractive with its rather complicated negotiation system. I myself have to struggle every time again whether I should do another season as player or not. best case is always you have an opponent that's interested in negotiating properly and promptly. Worst case is someone who starts negotiating at Thursday 21:59 and makes his second comment on Sunday or Monday. often enough half of the week or more is wasted on negotiating.

posted at 2024-02-17 19:29 by pchesso

Thanks for your input, blore and turamon.

I haven't offered an opinion on some suggestions made years ago in this thread, such as moving deadlines forward, stricter enforcement of rules etc. I'm aware that deadlines, punctuality etc. are interculturally sensitive concepts. I have no problem with games being scheduled on Thursday or Friday.

What bugs me, is players making other players wait for days and days. You post your first offers in good will, they're binding on you. It's not kind of your opponent to respond (or not respond) at their absolute leisure, three days later.

The guideline to respond within 24 hours, is a helpful one, in my opinion. It fosters common courtesy. It takes a mere minute to go to the game forum and say e.g.: "Of your three offers, the Sunday 10:00 offer looks good. I can't accept it yet, unfortunately, but I'll get back to you as soon as I can."

posted at 2024-02-18 12:09 by KRMCHESS

Sorry for getting to it a bit late.

Well actually as far as I'm concerned I think a lot of the negotiation rules aren't really working at the moment. For example:

Thursday, 22:00 FICS - First Contact Deadline . You must make initial contact, or respond to your opponent's contact, prior to this first contact deadline. If your opponent offered game times at least 24 hours ago, and you have not yet responded, he is no longer expected to show any flexibility with you. You must accept one of his offered game times.

In practice I see many cases of people not posting before then and not being forced to accept one of the 3 offers given (presumably refusal to do so is a forfeit?) that also has a legal blind spot if the offers were all to play before 2200 on Thursday. So I guess the big question is if there's any point having a rule if it isn't enforced.

Generally I think TDs tend to be rather relaxed in enforcing claims and generally try to avoid issuing forfeits unless player/captain explicitly asks for it. Considering the number of teams is probably on a downwards trajectory I figure being friendly is more likely to keep players playing rather than ruthlessly enforcing rules. In practice I think a lot of players are a lot more flexible than rules state they should be and thus often agree to reschedule games they can claim as forfeits and accept offers after the first contact deadline.

Overall I think everyone does the best they can and generally act in good faith. If my team isn't doing well one way I can look at it is that even if my team doesn't win over the board I can at least ensure we're winning in terms of sportsmanship! If there's any good suggestions I'm sure it's quite likely TDs would adopt it although you'd need a clear suggestion and explain why it would be an improvement over the status quo.

posted at 2024-02-20 06:37 by smallblackcat

Generally I think TDs tend to be rather relaxed in enforcing claims and generally try to avoid issuing forfeits unless player/captain explicitly asks for it. Considering the number of teams is probably on a downwards trajectory I figure being friendly is more likely to keep players playing rather than ruthlessly enforcing rules.

This is broadly correct; we will enforce forfeits based on missing the deadlines or missing game times entirely when requested only, based on a belief that the primary objective as TDs is to see the games played whenever reasonably possible. On the other hand, things responding to opponents' offers within 24 hours are treated as recommendations. Unless I am misunderstanding things (please correct me if so), pchesso was suggesting that we as captains encouraged our players to better follow these recommendations as a matter of courtesy, rather than changing the rules to enforce such behaviour.

I tend to agree with pchesso that it is as bad to be slow and unhelpful in negotiations as it is to miss the official deadlines, but the deadlines have the advantage of being simple, absolute rules that are easy to understand and enforce, and that is why we have treated them as hard rules while other aspects of negotiations are seen as mere recommendations.

Also, I find blore and turamon's discussion interesting, because each is arguing that the relaxed form of negotiations are an advantage and a disadvantage, respectively. My experience has been that some players find it easier to fit TL into their lives when there aren't many deadlines; whereas others find it harder because the lack of formal structures make it harder to plan things. I'd like you both to consider that we as organisers need to find a way to at least minimally accommodate both viewpoints.

posted at 2024-02-20 23:23 by blore

I didn't say, or even suggest, they don't have a life. I just don't think life is divided into seven day rigid cycles such that deciding the game time on Wednesday or Friday makes a difference. I stick by my statement and am not going to be beaten down by your opinion. What is this need to know as soon as possible? Who is even suggesting they reschedule their time around the game? What is so special about Wednesday as against Friday? I don't get it. Are you suggesting that if the games were for some reason announced on every friday or sunday instead of the current Tuesday, the world is going to turn on its head? Go ahead say all you want. I disagree.

posted at 2024-02-20 23:29 by blore

If the deadline to post the first offer is Thursday 22:00 then clearly offering times within 24 hours of that is not enforcible. I do not see any legal blindspot there. Also if the initial posting deadline is Thursday 22:00 then even if someone posts more than 24 hurs prior to that, there is no obligation before that time. I think one can stick with sometime and enforce rules better at best.

posted at 2024-02-21 13:33 by Turamon

@blore
you are aware of the fact that the season is divided into rounds and that games should be played during a round? oh and I don't gave you my opinion. I gave you my experience as a team captain as for why people are leaving or not rejoining TL.

@smallblackcat
my experience as captain is that the players who want to play in TL but have a lot of things to do, work related, family realted and so on, are not really taken care for when rules are seen as mere recommendations. I always feel that the players who show up early to negotiate and make space in an otherwise very busy life to meet TL requirements are not very well protected and supported with the relaxed view. It should not be hard for any player who read the player's handbook and agreed to the rules by joining TL to stick to them. and I don't see that there's a "relaxed" form of negotiations or rules. let's aply over the board rules: it's not "I touched a piece but I don't have to move it" or "well, I ran out of time but position is wining so let's go on". same should go for enforcing the rules strictly. you know what really wears me down? having to explain to another player that I made him read the handbook, answer questions about it and then having to tell him that TL admins ... well refer to the rules the same way like the Pirates in Pirates of the Caribbean refer to the Codex ...

or let me put it in other terms: once more a player did not return to TL in this season. He's a very reliable player. but he does not want to deal anymore with people showing up late to negotiating, making it close to impossible for him to negotiate times in a way that meets his requirements which are that he does not have unlimited times to offer in a week's time span. so ... EoT payed for Teamleague not enforcing the rules strictly with another player leaving the team instead of returning for this season. I could fill three to four teams with players who left due to similar reasons. and I'm tired of it.

posted at 2024-02-21 18:37 by smallblackcat

Turamon, the statutes and the handbook clearly distinguish between rules and recommendations. Eg, http://teamleague.org/LightNEasy.php?page=waystolose articulates actions which may cause immediate loss by forfeit (clear blame), and actions that may when taken together result in loss by forfeit (partial blame), and I say 'may' because the opponent can always waive their right to a win by forfeit.

Similarly, http://teamleague.org/LightNEasy.php?page=scheduling uses phrases like "shall carry consequences" for missing the deadlines, compared to "strongly encouraged" for making contact and responding as soon as possible. The reason for this is that the deadlines are clear and obvious, whereas "as soon as possible" is subjective and if we enforced that strictly would require a TD to arbitrarily decide whether someone met the requirement.

If you want to suggest that we change this is some way, say by making the recommendation of responding to offers/posts within 24 hours mandatory (something we can do fairly easily, as posts are all timestamped), that's a fair proposal that we can consider. If you think TDs should have more leeway in enforcing subjective criteria to forfeit people, that's also plausible, but I'd expect rather more push-back on that.

You made an analogy to over-the-board rules, so let me make another one: conduct like failing to correctly write your moves, or various forms of distracting behaviour are typically dealt with by warnings from the arbiter, or by other non-forfeit sanctions like adding time to the opponent's clock. On the other hand, if your phone ring during a game, you forfeit. Thus, we have a distinction between rules that are rigidly enforced, and rules that are enforced more gently. The same is true in TeamLeague.

posted at 2024-02-25 10:52 by Turamon

smallblackcat, I've had enough discussions with the admins of TL about when to protect players to know that our opinions are very different and that how we deal with the rules and recommendations is very different too.

I'm trying to make clear why I think TL is not attractive and what could be done to change that. I'm not doing this for the first time and I fully understand that this too is a topic where we have different opinions.