Regarding Rd 6 LNO/Ertle

Facts:
1. The current player handbook as posted under "documents" states

7-Day Window to Play Each Round. You will schedule and play your games within the 7-day period between Tuesday 19:00 FICS and the same time on Tuesday of the following week. If you cannot play within that time frame for a given round, you must give your Team Captain advance notice so someone else can be scheduled in your place. Make sure you can meet the following expectations if you tell your captain that you can play:

2. Ertle's initial offer was outside the 7 day window, without any explanation.

3. LNO questioned this, and made 3 counter offers within the 7 day window. (Opinion - this was the first VALID offer made in the forum)

4. OldRaptor, team captain, opined that the handbook was not being followed, and that Ertle should accept one of LNO's times, or continue negotiations in good faith, within the 7 day window.

5. Ertle did not accept any of LNO's offers, stating he still wanted to play on 3/9, but said he could negotiate another date between 3/4 and 3/11. (3/4, and 3/5 are within the 7 day period within which 2 of LNO's offers were made)

6. TD pawnadian opined:
"If Ertel is not available to play this week, then ideally he should have asked his captain to replace him for this round." whereas the handbook clearly states " If you cannot play within that time frame for a given round, you must give your Team Captain advance notice so someone else can be scheduled in your place." We all understand that things come up, and we try to accommodate. But there was no evidence of this. Clearly Ertle from the beginning was intent on playing outside the 7 day window.

7. LNO read pawnadian's opinion, and thought he was being directed to accept Ertle's offer, and accordingly set the time.

8. OldRaptor protested

9. Jaberwok ruled that the time has been set, stating that the rule in the handbook is OUT OF DATE. Jaberwok ruled in finality, without speaking with either player to assertane the ability of Ertle to play during the 7 day period, or reasons of LNO's acceptance.

OldRaptor now opines:

Apparently rules are made with no intention to uphold fairly the intent. As of this writing, there has still been no explanation of Ertles need to play outside the 7 day window, or why he didn't inform his captain to replace him. It should be clear to anyone who reads this discussion that we are being harmed. The answer is to follow the rules, play the game within the 7 day period. It is important to our team, and others i'm sure to know the results of Rd 6 prior to playing in Rd 7. Jaberwok states that there is no disadvantage, implying that games are independent of each other, and the section standings are nothing more than a numerical summation of the results. But for those playing the game, during the moment, decisions are made with regard to playing for a win, or a draw. The game flows differently. Our team Mysterious_Knight_Moves is currently tied for 1st place, but behind FlamingPhoenixFighters_claw, our opponent in Rd 7. It is not fair to us, nor to our 7th round opponent to play our games without knowing whether we need to win or draw the match, and likewise the individual games. It's just not fair, and is detrimental to the league to encourage such an environment. I recognize the need to have someone able to rule and make a final decision, but not without discussion, not without facts.

What follows is the inclusion of LNO/Ertle game forum for your examination: (please read from bottom up to be in chronoligical order)

Game Forum
Style: Classic | New
Fics time: 2013-03-02 12:42:47 Your local time:

Game 15837 - Mysterious_Knight_Moves - LNO vs Ertel - ArchBishops_CrazyBlues

2013-03-02 11:41:39
From LNO:
Hi Ertel,
Is there any possibilty for you to play the game on the 4th or 5th I would be very glad if you made some offers for rescheduling.
/LNO





MM DD HH mm



2013-03-02 10:50:49
From jaberwock:
Here is my ruling:

LNO and Ertel have agreed to a date/time, and have confirmed it after further discussion. This date/time will stand, unless both players agree to change it.

The rule cited by OldRaptor is an old rule, and while outdated, I can understand the argument of its application in this case. However, as both players have agreed to a time, I find that fact supersedes Ertel's alleged unavailability for the early/standard round time. Had Ertel not been available, he would have simply had to forfeit.

The request for amending team lineups is denied.

The suggestion that MKM to be allowed to delay already agreed times on other three boards to be changed to after the LNO-Ertel game is misguided, and will not be allowed.

The assertion that MKM players will not "know" what is required of them to win and are at an unfair disadvantage is also specious, as the opposing team also does not know what is required for them. With many team matches, games are not always played within a narrow window, so players are often aware of the "game within the game" in trying to help their team win the match.

The Players Handbook, as well as other parts of our guidelines are in need of updating and clarification, and we are in the process of that laborious task.

In the meantime, there are games to be played, and this case, as in most, the results will be determined on the chessboard.

As my ruling is final, I suggest no further game forum postings will be productive other than possible game date/time negotiations by players. I do invite discussion on the site's bulletin board.

I commend both players for their cordial communication focused on finding a compatible playing time.

jaberwock
2013-03-02 08:02:29
From OldRaptor:
I Don't understand this at all! Ertel states that he can play between 3/4 and 3/11. LNO has already offered 2 times within that time period. Why can't this game be played then.

I don't think it is fair to Mysterious Knight Moves, OR to FlamingPhonexFighters_claw to play our final match of the season without knowing what is required of them to win. This is a head to head match of utmost importance as we are each tied for 1st place within out alekine devision. MKM is actually behind on tiebreaks.

Why is this against the player handbook?
1) There has been no evidence submitted that Ertel informed his captain that he was unable to play in time to arrange a substitute. There is no evidence that "something came up at the last minute" since in Ertel's initial offering only 27hrs after the parings were announced he made no offer withing the 7 day period, and offered no reason in that initial offering of something unexpected arising that would prevent him from playing on time AS REQUIRED!!!

Should this game time stand, which is clearly against the rules as stated in the player's handbook, I will strongly recommend that No player on MKM start any game until at least 2 hrs AFTER the completion of the LNO/Ertel game, giving us the time to evaluate our position. I will also ask permission to amend our team line up if desired, once the position is evaluated.

I fully expect the TD to enforce the rules of the player handbook.

OldRaptor >> Captain, Mysterious_Knight_Moves
2013-03-02 03:51:18
From Ertel:
Hello friend chessplayer.
I wish it were on Saturday (03/09) ... If you're not much time available to date, we can think of another, between 03/04 to 03/11. From there'll be plenty of time free.

Thank you,

Ertel
2013-03-02 01:23:52
From LNO:
Ok I have set the time to next Saturday, See you then
Best regards LNO
2013-03-02 01:23:00
From LNO:
Has set the scheduled time to 2013-03-09 11:00
2013-03-01 20:10:51
From Pawnadian:
If Ertel is not available to play this week, then ideally he should have asked his captain to replace him for this round. However, that is not always possible and so extensions are permitted for all rounds except round 7. If necessary the players can schedule their game for the following week but it must be completed no later than March 12 at 1900 server time.

In the event that the players cannot agree to a time and I must rule on the result, I will be taking the availability of each player into consideration when making my decision.

Pawnadian (TD)
2013-03-01 06:59:00
From LNO:
I also can play saturday 2nd 12:00 ST and that I would really prefer, because I have a very tight schedule this week
2013-03-01 06:52:57
From LNO:
I have spoken to our captain , and obviously the round needs to be played before tuesday the 5th 19:00 according to the rules so therefore my offers are:
Sunday 3rd 11:00
Monday 4th 11:00
Tuseday 5th 11:00
all offers server time of course. Hope we can get this to work. Best regards / LNO
2013-03-01 06:52:31
From OldRaptor:
Ertel,

This is OldRaptor, captain of Mysterious_Knight_moves. According to the player handbook:

7-Day Window to Play Each Round. You will schedule and play your games within the 7-day period between Tuesday 19:00 FICS and the same time on Tuesday of the following week. If you cannot play within that time frame for a given round, you must give your Team Captain advance notice so someone else can be scheduled in your place. Make sure you can meet the following expectations if you tell your captain that you can play:

I have instructed LNO to make 3 counter offers within the proper time frame. You are obligated to accept one of these, or find a time suitable withing the proper time period. I will be claiming a forfeit for our team, if you cannot work it out, since you did not make arrangements with your captain stating that you could not play in time for him to find a substitute for your team

OldRaptor
2013-02-28 15:52:16
From LNO:
well if you do not have another convinient time, feel free to set the time to next Saturday 11:00 :)
2013-02-28 06:10:17
From Ertel:
Yes, it's another next Saturday, if you can. During this week, say new schedules as soon as possible.

Until now, of course, only these.
:)
2013-02-28 00:12:37
From LNO:
When I looked at your offerings I just saw that you have suggested Saturday the 9th which is more than a week from now, I thought you ment THIS Saturday 2 march. I am not sure about this so I dont set the time yet. /Regards LNO
2013-02-28 00:06:53
From LNO:
Hello! Saturday 11:00 will be just fine. See you then.
2013-02-27 22:51:01
From Ertel:
Hello, my offerings are:

Saturday (03/09) - 03:00 to 05:30 and 11:00 to 18:00 st
Sunday (03/10) - 03:00 to 05:30 and 11:00 to 18:00 st
Monday (03/11) - 03:00 to 05:30 and 11:00 to 18:00 st

Thnks so much
2013-02-27 20:08:26
From TeamLeague:
LNO and Ertel,
The initial contact deadline is Thursday at 19:00 server time. Please begin negotiations in your game forum at http://www.teamleague.org as soon as possible.

This is an automated reminder. Please ask the TD if you have any questions.

Oldraptor, is not thetimeset and agreed? What matter is it if thegame is played outside the seven day window?

Not wishing to get into a semantic battle, I will respond in brief.

A veteran staff member of TL has noted that often it appears that rules punish those who follow them. As a rule follower myself, I smile at the irony.

If one compares FICS and ICC rules for 45/45 team play, we have fewer and less detailed rules, and that is by no accident.
Attempts to legislate every potential outcome will turn us all into lawyers, and that is certainly not why I am here.

My bottom line is to maximize results on the chess board, and that is my effort here.

I welcome discussion on TL format, rules, and innovations, as long as we are civil and respectful, and know that sometimes in the end we will agree to disagree.

jaberwock

The time was set, because LNO did not understand the message from TD pawnadian. LNO thought he was being instructed to take Ercle's offer, because he was the first one to make an offer, albeit outside the 7 day time line.

(ansering bowserjrzhu) I thought I made myself clear as to the question of what difference it makes. This is a team sport, and the games are played in conjunction with each other. If one team leads the other by a score of 2-1, the play of the game is different, and the leading team only needs a draw. As an example to this, My rd1 game against Funkmaus was won, only because I only needed a draw, and she had to play for a win. Check it out, it's the Game of the Week in Rd 1. (answering bowserjrzhu)

Our 7th round game is against the team with which we are tied for first place (we are in second counting tiebreaks). I don't know what the situation, or standing will be, but to be fair for both of our teams, it is imperative that we know the results of round 6 before we play any of our games. Should you not reverse your ruling, we will be forced to play all our games on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday to achieve that end. This will creat scheduling problems for our team, as well as theirs. Now it is possible that the standings will be different, and this may be moot. But the fact remains that we need to prepare for that possibility now, as we would not be able to go back and fix it later.

In short, the game time was set under perceived duress by LNO, and should be vacated. If that happens, Ercle has already stated that he is available to play between 3/4 and 3/11. LNO has already made two offers within that time period. Monday 3/4 @ 1100, and Tuesday 3/5 @ 1100. LNO's were the first valid offer within the alotted 7 day period. LNO should be treated with preference for making the first offer within handbook guidelines.

I have a follow up question concerning the same team. I don't wish to mix these issues, but how shall I best talk to you about it?


Old Raptor

Quoting OldRaptor: " Should you not reverse your ruling, we will be forced to play all our games on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday to achieve that end. This will creat scheduling problems for our team, as well as theirs."

There is a clear process for dealing with disputes over rules and their interpretation:

1) you can seek a ruling or clafication from the section TD; in this case Pawnadian (a highly experienced TD, I might add) made a clear ruling.

2) if you disagree with the ruling, you can appeal to the Chief TD; in this case jaberwock heard your appeal, and upheld Pawnadian's ruling.

3) if you disagree with the ruling of both the section TD and the Chief TD, you can threaten to disrupt other teamleague games in protest...

Wait, hang on...this is not how to deal with such a dispute, or any dispute for that matter. It's awfully close to blackmail, in fact. It's also profoundly disrespectful to TL staff, who devote a great deal of time and energy to the running of this league.

A ruling has been made, an appeal has been heard, and the two players involved are negotiating in good faith and good humour. This should be an end to the matter, and the game should be decided on the board.

4) Intimidate the captain for intervening on behalf of his player.

I would like to personally thank Ertle for his part in rescheduling the game to within the 7 day period.

OldRaptor

I have nothing to say about the particulars of this situation, of course, but it does concern me that on numerous occasions in my TL playing career I have heard something along the lines of "The rule cited by OldRaptor is an old rule" or "The Player's Handbook is not up to date."

As a player wishing to follow the rules set forth by TL Mgmt. (as I believe the overwhelming majority players wish as well), it is pretty hard to do so if it is not clear what they actually are!

As a prodcutive suggestion, I would encourage someone being tasked with updating the rules. As a person who has produced and critiqued such documents in their professional career, I would be happy to participate as a reviewer/commenter to help improve the clarity of the end product.

At a minimum, would it not make sense to identify and update such "outdated" rules as they are encountered during the course TLs, so that such misunderstandings don't occur repeatedly over time?

tseltzer,

Yes we are conscious of the broader issue of the handbooks having some out of date parts, and to that end wmahan recently created a wiki to facilitate editing them. So far that is as far as things have gone, but there are serious intentions of working on this during the next break between TLs. I'm sure we would be grateful for any contribution you could make, which we can discuss later, and possibly we can also give you access to the wiki if that suits.

I would like to emphasise that this problem exists primarily with the handbooks, and not the statutes. The statutes have their own issues, mostly regarding clarity, and the schedule section in particular is mostly unnecessary now that we always play a 7/8 team round robin, but we've updated them to account for changes in the rules (at least those made in the last few years).

I will also point out that it should be clear that the part referenced by OldRaptor clearly refers to a time when TL games had to be completed within a single week (the clue is the heading "7-Day Window to Play Each Round"). It also suggests that anyone not hearing a response from an opponent after 24 hours should re-post their initial offer, which no-one does (nor should they, as it only clutters up the forum).

The word "should" is not imparitive, it is only desirable. If the intent were to demand a re-post, the correct word is "shall", the imparitive form.

Thank you tseltzer for crystalizing the heart of this issue.


Oldraptor

Many improvements, such as automation of repetitive operations and set ups, improvements or innovations as well as monitoring and guiding tournament sections represent many hours of work by many volunteers.

The idea to "task" someone to updating rules seems to ignore that the TL staff work on this volunteer basis beyond their normal jobs and lives.

I thank tseltzer for his offer to review output from the rewrite/organization, and we may later see if we can take him up on his offer.
It is noted that reviewing the rules and regulations will be but a fraction of the time of rewriting and reorganization.

jaberwock

TL will continue to evolve via some paths slower or different direction than some may prefer.

It has never been pretended that the grand process of Team League started many years ago was/is perfect. This will be true even after the monumental task of addressing the updating TL documents.

In the meantime, the focus of the staff will be to continue the availability of team competition. For those who question the competence and integrity of staff may do better playing elsewhere.

jaberwock

The suggestion that a captain that feels "intimidated" for sticking up for his player is disingenuous given his disregard in his intention to disrupt scheduling.

jaberwock

I whole heartedly object to this characterization of my intent. I clearly stated that we have a need for information with regard to the games of Rd6. I was abiding to your decision. I only stated that there was now a short window within the 7 day (and absolute limit for rd7) window that would satisfy our needs and your ruling. I was directing my team well within the guidelines. Where is the disruption? Where was the threat? I was only dealing with the reality of the matter.

Further, I am not, and was not intimated by smallblackcat's attempt to do so. So let me correct the record by inserting the words "attempt to" into my earlier statement which now reads "4) attempt to intimidate the captain for intervening on behalf of his player."

It would be nice if these discussions were not reduced to a series of personal attacks, and would stick to the issues in a rational, thoughtful manner. Chess is a gentleman's game, can we not behave that way? As far as I am concerned, the direct issue has been settled, and the remaining side issue brought forth by tseltzer is at least being discussed.

To that end, if there is any text that I have written in the course of this discussion that could be intrupted as abusive, disruptive, or in any way less than civil, I will make a blanket appoligy for that. It was not my intent.

Once again, I thank Ertle for his part in rescheduling the game to withing the 7 day limit.

OldRaptor

Personal attacks? When you accused a staff member of attempting to intimidate you, which still I fail to see, THAT crosses the line of getting personal.

More than one staff member whose patience outlasts mine view this as your intent to disrupt : "Should you not reverse your ruling, we will be forced to play all our games on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday to achieve that end. This will creat scheduling problems for our team, as well as theirs." And "forced to play"?

I plead guilty to allowing myself getting pulled into the semantics battle, and I will attempt to refrain further discussion as we have reached diminishing returns in productivity. And I shall do so without a shallow blanket apology.

jaberwock

English is not a precise language, especially when it is written text, without hearing the tonality of the voice, seeing the facial expressions, or observing any accompanying hand jesters, or body language. I have already appologized for any text than may have been misconstrued, and will now inclued my last statement as well. Catagorically it was not, and is not my intent to disrupt any flow of Teamleague, but to only follow the rules as spelled out in the handbook that is published and presented to me and all of Teamleague.

So, given that, I ask once again, that we recognize that this matter is closed, with exception to Tseltzer's comments, and behave in a civilized fashion.

I appologize for any text that may have misconstrued my intent to serve my team in it's best interest, within the guidelines of the published Teamleague handbook.

OldRaptor

Quoting OldRaptor: Further, I am not, and was not intimated by smallblackcat's attempt to do so. So let me correct the record by inserting the words "attempt to" into my earlier statement which now reads "4) attempt to intimidate the captain for intervening on behalf of his player."

It would be nice if these discussions were not reduced to a series of personal attacks, and would stick to the issues in a rational, thoughtful manner. Chess is a gentleman's game, can we not behave that way?

It would seem we are at am impasse. I perceived your earlier statement, with its "should you not reverse your ruling" followed by a description of actions you intended to take, as a threat. You in turn perceived my referring to this as such, as "attempted intimidation". As neither of us are likely to change our views on this, it seems we must agree to differ.

However, there is a difference between us. You are a participant in a free online chess league which I, among others, volunteer to run. In short, you are benefiting from a service I help to provide. I fully intend to go on providing it to you and all others who choose to join this league. For that, I request a modicum of respect that I believe is due to me.

And by 'respect' I mean don't repeat the accusation you previously made against me, and then in the very next sentence call for an end to such personal attacks.

I trust we can leave this matter as settled, and I suggest further discussion on revisions of the handbooks can be moved to a thread of its own.

Agreed. We have reached an Impasse, and shall agree to differ. Thank you for your faithful service to Teamleague.

OldRaptor