Proposal for guidelines for reporting incomplete games

[Kool Kat]

You mean, Green, it's more hassle to say to a prospective opponent - 'I would like X rule on reporting, do you agree?' than to say 'I would like to use the X rule on reporting found 'here' (in the forum) - do you agree?' In both cases you say it has to be agreed. The second case is actually more cumbersome.

The reason you want a forum rule is that you want it to have some kind of normative force, otherwise there really is no point and you might as well agree your own rules. So there is to be some kind of idea of 'conforming to the norm' as you say. So it's a rule, and if it really were purely advisory it wouldn't achieve what you want. That's the whole point, because what you want to achieve is that the actual ratings - the results of the reporting - change so as to better reflect something you think ought to be reflected and which you think isn't properly reflected. You don't just want fairness (as you conceive it) between you and your opponent, but across the whole board, hence the need for a rule for everyone.

There have been arguments put against it, above in this thread, already. And arguments for it (the preceding paragraph is actually the argument for it). But I don't think - to say one last thing - that you should discount the view that some may have (me, for instance) that more rules are not desirable per se. As I argued above, it's meant to be an amusement, not something so serious as in need of rules to make sure the ladder - for those who use it - accurately reflects skill levels etc. Everything that the rule is meant to deal with has already been being dealt with for many years informally, between the players. I don't see why that can't continue, why the forum can't continue operating on trust and goodwill.

Fun discussion, anyway.....

As a postscript, one of the reasons when playing Napoleonic games that I prefer to get opponents from this board rather than the specific Nappy board (the NWS) is that that board is a much 'heavier' structure with all sorts of rules and behaviours which, for me (not everyone) make it a bit harder to just simply find an opponent, play a game and report it if someone wants that. It's one of the great things about this place that it is simple and free of clutter. It does what it says it does, with the minimum fuss. I think that probably attracts people here.

It's also clear from the small numbers doing the vote that most people don't really care about this - much more than the numbers who vote that they don't care. I actually am also someone who doesn't care much, but the reason I'm voting against and joining in this discussion now is that it can happen that things change gradually into things you no longer want or like if you allow rules to be put through by the minority who want a rule change, who are naturally more exercised about the issue and more inclined to argue their case and be bothered about it. So it's good if some opposition is felt, I think, from the silent majority. Because what is really going on here is that a very small minority of users care about an issue that the vast majority don't care about - and that's not a good basis on which to put through a change. The voting figures should be read that way, perhaps - there are (at the moment) 10 people who care at all about this, and all the other users don't really care....

Gent: 


The original proposal was for "informal guidelines" - NOT the introduction of binding rules.

Players are free to adopt the informal guidelines or reject them as they desire. There are no club penalties for either using them or not using them.

The use of informal guidelines is not new to the Blitz since they are baked into our club's "Rules of Engagement" and found in the "Important Threads" Forum sections.

For example; "Discontinuing a Game and Missing Opponents" (Rule #6) and "Message Boards / Forum Conduct" (Rule #8) contain informal guidelines within their respective rules sections. In the "Important Threads" section of this Forum, there are numerous threads that give guidelines and suggestions on what Optional Rules to use. Now the FWWC Optional Rules guidelines uses the more forceful phrase "should use", but again these are guidelines only - not binding rules.

Players who voted "No" in the poll continue to substitute "rules" for "informal guidelines" in their defenses and make the erroneous statements that this proposal would be enforced and made mandatory. Nobody who supports the introduction of guidelines is advocating rules and mandatory enforcement. 

Players are free to adopt, reject or ignore these informal guidelines as they desire. 

The reason we are having this debate is because the poll numbers are much closer then you publicly acknowledge. Discard the "I don't care either way" voters since they would support use of informal guidelines or not. Then you admit you don't care much either and suddenly there is essentially a statistical tie (at the moment) between players who don't want informal guidelines and those players who support them. The Silent Majority does not care and remains "silent" and there you have it.

Again, why not introduce informal guidelines that are NOT rules and are NOT mandatory as a tool and guideline for players who desire such help?