I am not personally affected by this thing, I don't PERSONALLY care, but I try to be empathic.Fletcheese wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 20:09Can you describe succinctly why the admin's response is not acceptable? I genuinely do not understand. Is it specifically the last part about playing for ELO with unlimited time? Everything else is still possible on the platform just in slightly different ways as outlined in the post.Ze Monstah wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 19:25I think most of the people here, are/were aware of the existence of that response.Fletcheese wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 17:52 There most definitely has been a response by admins. You can say you do not like this response, but it does exist.
By "no response", I think they meant "not a common ground response".
I am not sure how going literal after 6 days of silence in this thread, is helping anyone.
And really... with almost 26 pages of complaints... I am amazed that this issue wasn't brought back yet, since it's not supposed to be such a great deal (unless for other unknown reasons).
As I see it: a person gave an example of a library program that was dependent on that setting that was eliminated; they simply say they want real time with no time limit.
Also, turn-based with no time limit, is also impossible as we speak. You can at most play 1 move/2 days; which for some, is not possible sometimes, in an ELO-game.
You can check the replies for more examples, if you haven't yet.
Another problem with training games (I am not sure if it was addressed yet), is that when you play a training mode game (unlike a non-training normal one that you win: real-time or turn-based), the game is not taken as a victory, if you win it; but it is taken as a played game, once finished. So your % of wins in that game decreases by playing training mode games; even if you win all those games.
Someone should correct me if wrong, but last time I checked, it was like I just said above.
A lot of people (as you can probably see it) want this thing back... And the opinions are almost 100% unanimous, so it's not really a controversial issue.
I think you're the only one saying otherwise (or 1 of 2).
In my opinion, the huge number is enough and should have some power.
*And sorry, 'just noticed the "succinctly", but I don't think I can do "succinctly".