NEW RULES TRY OUT

[djarvik]

- The player first sending a PM MUST offer time of play - if he doesn't he loses by default via WO.

- If your opponent fails to show up on time, you must send a PM to him 15 min after the arranged time, to log the "no show" via PM. Failure to do so may result in a NO MATCH or a WO for the opponent and cannot be disputed with the host afterwards.


This is effective 4-20-2015 and will expire 5-20-2015 at which time we will review and potentially make this a permanent rule.

We value our Host's time very much. Considering they are volunteers - so should you. No need to waste time with:

"when can you play?"
"I can play today from 4-10pm"
"I can play tomorrow"
etc.

EXACT time should be given in the FIRST pm sent. Recipient must either agree or disagree with that time. If he disagrees - he must propose a different time. Failure to do so will give grounds for Host to award the WO to the opponent.


EDIT: Just to clarify, the "Time Block" are acceptable as long as they are followed by an exact time offer within the Time Block. For example:

"I can play tomorrow 6-10PM CET. Lets set exact time at 7:30CET."

The opponent can then either agree on the time of offer a different time within the Time Block or offer his own Time Block with exact time."

[djarvik]

If you have any questions or this is not clear enough - let me know and I will do my best to explain further. If you speak another language and would like to contribute - please translate it and post in this thread.

[inseedious]

If the opponent disagrees about the time you sent him at first, and proposes another one in which you won't be available instead, does anyone receive a "higher priority", assuming it's the last useful day to play (e.g. last day before deadline, or result of a deadline extension itself)? Especially in later rounds, where deadlines often expire before the previous round has been played, this is a common problem, usually because of players causing last-minute WOs. In addition, some players give availability for one day only (usually the last useful one), so the situation i'm talking about is frequent and, in most cases, unavoidable.

[djarvik]

If the opponent disagrees about the time you sent him at first, and proposes another one in which you won't be available instead, does anyone receive a "higher priority", assuming it's the last useful day to play (e.g. last day before deadline, or result of a deadline extension itself)? Especially in later rounds, where deadlines often expire before the previous round has been played, this is a common problem, usually because of players causing last-minute WOs. In addition, some players give availability for one day only (usually the last useful one), so the situation i'm talking about is frequent and, in most cases, unavoidable.

This is solely at Hosts discretion. Ordinarily we will extend deadlines if needed for later rounds, but if a host sees a chronic behavior from a certain player he may decide to put his foot down.

As far offering to play on a last day of the deadline, whoever does that is basically committing a WO suicide, as the opponent simply has to offer earlier day or two. Being able to play only on one day and the day of the deadline is not considered "available to play the tournament". I understand that things come up in day to day life, but this cannot be opponents fault. Here as well, host can exercise good judgment and spot chronic behavior.

[C4iLL]

At first glance, this seems to be a very good rule !