IDFL

lets burn fuel man!!!
0100 to 0300 GMT from monday to thrusday. you could also give me your online time as well.

the rules " If the challenger fails to respond to a challengee's acceptance of a challenge time on the challenge thread within 4 days, the challengee may request a Default or a Void."

I am requesting a default if fighter does not accept this challenge after 4 days.

cheers

Fighters last post was oct 20th so it doesn't look like he's still active which would result in a void.
Did you pm and email him?

Shouldn't this be a default.

If the flyer is listed as active and is challengable it should not be a void. I feel that it is the flyer's responsability to keep up with his availability state.

Now if after the first default if admins want to move him to the on leave section that would be cool.

What exactly are the rules to decide Void or Default?

I still may have missed it, but we need this addressed so there is no question. In my thinking, if a pilot is on the active roster, and has not alerted to anyone of his leave, he is AWOL, and should be subject to defaults as a penalty for not going on leave. Otherwise, these pilots are impeding progress and wasting time.

This was discussed in this thread
http://www.abms.net.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=298

Looks like we'll have to add a rule for activeness, how long should it be before a vpilot is put on leave automatically.
I'd say a month, maby 3 weeks.

Fighter defaulted his last challenge.

This was never fully discussed.

What difference does it make if he's active on the ladder or not? If he's not available, he should be on leave...it's that simple.

Activity means dick, it's whether you're available, or not. If he doesn't respond and is listed as active and not on leave, said pilot should be penalized with a default. If the pilot is defaulted already (as is the case with FightR), then it's the administrations responsibility to put said pilot on leave. Apparently this was missed, and he was challenged again....

However, if the administration wishes to uphold a loosely interpreted set of rules for deciding default or void, by all means have at it.

>This was never fully discussed.
>What difference does it make if he's active on the ladder or not? If he's >not available, he should be on leave...it's that simple.
>Activity means dick, it's whether you're available, or not. If he doesn't >respond and is listed as active and not on leave, said pilot should be >penalized with a default.

The difference is if the vpilot dissapears and doesn't put himself on leave, not everyone takes the time to do this so its not that simple.
So should another vpilot benefit just because someone decides not to fly anymore and doesn't go on leave, not a very honourable way to move up the ladder.

> If the pilot is defaulted already (as is the case with FightR), then it's the administrations responsibility to put said pilot on leave. Apparently this was missed, and he was challenged again....

Yup it was missed then again we didn't know if he was active or not for sure.

>However, if the administration wishes to uphold a loosely interpreted set of rules for deciding default or void, by all means have at it.d again..

Which is why i said we need to add a rule for activeness.

xianzai wrote:

So should another vpilot benefit just because someone decides not to fly anymore and doesn't go on leave, not a very honourable way to move up the ladder.

Absolutely! It has nothing to do with honor. It has to do with penalties for inactivity, and not letting anyone know you're going to be gone. So what is a pilot to do, just sit and keep challenging those that have failed to mention they're gone?

Hardly a cohesive way to move up the ladder eh?

Yup it was missed then again we didn't know if he was active or not for sure.

One default wasn't enough to realize he wasn't active?

Which is why i said we need to add a rule for activeness.

Any suggestions?

I was on leave for some time and when I returned my rank went down from ~1670 to 1415 as the rules state "After 14 days of being on leave, rating points will be lost at the rate of five (5) per day." I have no problem with this rules and the admin enforced it, well done job.

now i have followed the rules "If the challenger fails to respond to a challengee's acceptance of a challenge time on the challenge thread within 4 days, the challengee may request a Default or a Void."

xianzai wrote:Fighters last post was oct 20th so it doesn't look like he's still active which would result in a void.
Did you pm and email him?

well guys I am done with the IDL it was fun flying and competing with all. take care.

I think the default needs to be cleard up.

A default awarded due to no response (0) should warrant automatic "on-leave" status.

While a default by a pilot who responds once in a while (1 to 2 responses during 8 day period) should not be automatically moved to "on-leave" status but should be allowed one more defualt. If he is defaults another match due to no response, with replies or not, then he should be moved to "on-leave" status.

Paveway why are you leaving?

>Absolutely! It has nothing to do with honor. It has to do with penalties for inactivity, and not letting anyone know you're going to be gone. So what is a pilot to do, just sit and keep challenging those that have failed to mention they're gone?
Hardly a cohesive way to move up the ladder eh?

A penalty for inactivity is fine and I suppose someone can be penalized for inactivity and not going on leave if they have left the ladder but its not right that someone benefits from this.

Nap is working on a new setup to keep track of activity. If it works well this problem shouldn't happen again.

>One default wasn't enough to realize he wasn't active?

I did that default and in that situation it was not exactly clear, fighter made the challenge and then didn't respond so it was a clear default but whether or not he was going to continue to fly or not was unclear, which is
why I didn't put him on leave.

xianzai wrote:
but its not right that someone benefits from this.

Of course it's right that a pilot should benefit from it. His time was wasted over 4 days on a pilot that refused to put himself on leave, leaving the league "no impact, no idea" on his flight status, the LEAST that can be done is the pilot that's available to fight to be awarded a default victory.

I strongly submit that your assessment of defaults is unfair, and out of line. Purely from a professional standpoint of course.

Nap is working on a new setup to keep track of activity. If it works well this problem shouldn't happen again.

IMO this is not necessary. However, if he enjoys the extra workload and has a good system that can be implemented, I'm all for it too. Nap has definately shown his abilities before with flying colors.

I did that default and in that situation it was not exactly clear, fighter made the challenge and then didn't respond so it was a clear default but whether or not he was going to continue to fly or not was unclear, which is
why I didn't put him on leave.

Was is just too difficult to make a decision? The pilot is gone, no response...automatic leave...seems quite simple. They come back for a challenge, then great, they are back....but why impede the progress of TRUE active pilots by having them put up with those that don't have the common curteousy to inform the league of a leave of absence?

>Of course it's right that a pilot should benefit from it. His time was wasted over 4 days on a pilot that refused to put himself on leave, leaving the league "no impact, no idea" on his flight status, the LEAST that can be done is the pilot that's available to fight to be awarded a default victory.
I strongly submit that your assessment of defaults is unfair, and out of line. Purely from a professional standpoint of course.

I find your point confusing on this issue because now you are saying a vpilot should be awarded points without earning them while before you questioned the current scoring system which ranked players higher then they should be on how they actually won individual games in the ROE's, earning a high rank while not having a very good win average for example Xianzai in 8th place with a 50% average.

My assessment is simply not to award someone for not earning points. This is an online gaming fun free AF sim ladder and I think its safe to assume people will come and go as they please and if they take the time to put themselves on leave we are lucky.

Do you really think anybody deserves 3 win points for only 4 days from someone who hasn't posted on this board in almost 2 months, why would you be in favour of advancing without earning it?
I don't and I can't imagine that anybody would want the points. If fighter comes back next week and expects to fly then I think it would be reasonable for paveway to file protest and get the default.
Its a simple thing to realize fighter is gone, void and rechallenge someone who's active without trying to gain points for nothing.

>Was is just too difficult to make a decision? The pilot is gone, no response...automatic leave...seems quite simple. They come back for a challenge, then great, they are back....but why impede the progress of TRUE active pilots by having them put up with those that don't have the common curteousy to inform the league of a leave of absence?

No it was easy, I didn't think it was clear that fighter left the ladder so I didn't put him on leave, that was the decision. You can say it was wrong there are 2 sides to every story.

xianzai wrote:
I find your point confusing on this issue because now you are saying a vpilot should be awarded points without earning them while before you questioned the current scoring system which ranked players higher then they should be on how they actually won individual games in the ROE's, earning a high rank while not having a very good win average for example Xianzai in 8th place with a 50% average.

What does a different scoring system have to do with AWOL pilots wasting activated pilots time?

If this is the case, then I would recommend closer scrutiny of those that are challenging, and those that are challenged by the administrators.

Like NAP has done in the past, he's posted warnings about the possibility that X pilot may not show up cause they were last active months ago....etc.

I don't see this action from other administrators, giving them the opportunity to void outright, and challenge another active pilot.

So consider this: Under you idea, no one should advance unless they win a match, so what happens when 5 pilots above an active pilot are AWOL? How does he challenge above them?

Does he have to wait for the administrators to take their time and put X pilots on leave, or does he have to challenge each and every one of the inactive 5 above him, and wait 4 days a piece before administration gets the idea there is something wrong with not awarding defaults because of AWOL pilots?

I think you get my point here eh?

My assessment is simply not to award someone for not earning points. This is an online gaming fun free AF sim ladder and I think its safe to assume people will come and go as they please and if they take the time to put themselves on leave we are lucky.

I think we've addressed this above with speculation on the possiblity of 5 inactive pilots above a challenging pilot (and yes, we've had this problem numerous times before until the ladder was cleaned up).

Sure, come and go as you please, but excersize courtesy and request leave, or do it yourself...If you don't, you should be subject to defaults.

Do you really think anybody deserves 3 win points for only 4 days from someone who hasn't posted on this board in almost 2 months, why would you be in favour of advancing without earning it?

Yes I do. Do you think anybody deserves to wait 4 days to a week with no response, because a pilot refused to alert the league to their absence?

I don't and I can't imagine that anybody would want the points. If fighter comes back next week and expects to fly then I think it would be reasonable for paveway to file protest and get the default.
Its a simple thing to realize fighter is gone, void and rechallenge someone who's active without trying to gain points for nothing.

If there was more scrutiny on the challenges, and if the rules were cut and dried, this wouldn't be an issue.

No it was easy, I didn't think it was clear that fighter left the ladder so I didn't put him on leave, that was the decision. You can say it was wrong there are 2 sides to every story.

A pilot makes a challenge, and then doesn't show or respond, and you have issues listing them as MIA, or on leave?

Interesting...

What's wrong with putting them on leave, then when they are ready to compete they can come back and voice their intent to fly?