|
Post by Foo Cheong on Sept 16, 2013 12:56:59 GMT 8
How about this scenario? There is a struggle to fill-up places but finally got 14. But instead of 1 no-show, 2 or even 3 don't turn up. There is no one on the wait-list so no one is deprived.
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 16, 2013 13:23:30 GMT 8
It depends whether the 3 who didn't show came in less than 5 hours before the game. More likely than all three players coming in less than 5 hours before the game not showing, the game would have been switched to a small pitch or been cancelled.
You have to bear in mind it is not just about deterring players from coming in as late fillers, it also acts as a deterrence for me to ask around to find replacements for withdrawals.
For example, the Saturday game could also have been left 1 short.
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Sept 16, 2013 13:28:05 GMT 8
What if it is the same scenario as last Sunday's: line-ups (7-a-side) have been announced, and then 3 of them don't show up and did not inform earlier, and when you called them at 4.30pm, all three gave various reasons for not showing up?
Too late to have the game cancelled or switched to a smaller pitch because the game would have already kicked-off.
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 16, 2013 13:32:07 GMT 8
You mean all 3 of the late fillers are no shows? We can always come up with incredible scenarios to make a point can't we. How could the game have started? We could still have switched to a small pitch. The only person who ends up wasting time is me, including responding to queries about incredible scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Sept 16, 2013 13:39:21 GMT 8
I am painting a scenario and, of course, it has to be worst-case scenario. I would be wasting my time to come up with a normal scenario.
Have you taken into account the unintended consequences if there is no penalty for no-shows under all scenarios? You may think the scenario of 3 no-shows is incredulous. But if you let one get away with a no-show, it sends a signal to others that it is allright to do so.
And by the time you finished calling the 3 no-shows, calling the office to switch to the small pitch (if that is possible), checking with the 11 whether they are agreeable to switch to the small pitch...what time would that be? 5.20pm (if things move fast) or 5.30pm? 30 minutes of play? That's just great.
At 5.10pm, after a wait of about 10 minutes for any late-comers, the 11 players would have kicked-off on the big pitch. Are you saying that at 5.10pm those who are present should call you and you are able to switch them to the small pitch immediately?
Whether or not the game continues on the big pitch (an uneven 5 vs 6-a-side) or is switched to a smaller pitch, the feelings of the 11 who are present should be taken into account. They are likely frustrated and unhappy with the no-shows.
Don't just think of deterring or losing prospective customers, think of losing or angering your existing customers.
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 16, 2013 13:50:26 GMT 8
I don't think you have answered my question - all three of the no shows are late fillers, that is, coming in less than 5 hours before the game?
To be honest, so many players have drifted off over the years, I'm not particularly concerned if more do so for whatever reason. Several have moved to other games. Not much I can do about that either.
My main objective is to be sure that games that can go on do go on. Those that can't will have to be cancelled. Simple, and I try to keep it simple.
And players who repeatedly misuse the system will be blocked for a period of time.
I have really nothing more to add.
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Sept 16, 2013 13:54:18 GMT 8
So what if they are late fillers coming in less than 5 hours before the game? If they have indicated that they can play, they should show up.
The issue is that they are no-shows (and they did not give notice) and that spoils the game for the other 11.
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 16, 2013 13:58:47 GMT 8
See, you've missed my original point. Nothing else has changed. Like I said, the bigger deterrence for me is that I stop trying to fill up places late on, and just allow games to go on with uneven numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Sept 16, 2013 14:01:39 GMT 8
And players who repeatedly misuse the system will be blocked for a period of time. You could have state this upfront and everyone would known that there are penalties. And that is all I wanted to know.
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 16, 2013 14:07:09 GMT 8
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Sept 16, 2013 14:08:54 GMT 8
If the 3 no-shows gave adequate notice, it may be better to cancel the game than to continue with 5 vs 6, whether on a small pitch or big pitch.
The issue is not giving notice. The current penalty for a player who has signed up and who is a no-show is $2, regardless of whether there is a wait-list or not (correct me if I am wrong).
But there is no financial penalty for late filler who does not show up if there is no one on thewait-list.
Why the double standard?
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 16, 2013 14:11:47 GMT 8
Players who come into a game because they are needed, rather than just sticking to or migrating to certain games because those are more popular or competitive, will always get some leeway from me.
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Sept 16, 2013 14:15:20 GMT 8
Ok, the arbitrary double standard is noted.
So what if they come into a game only not to show up? How have they helped you, and the other 15 (or 13) who showed up?
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 16, 2013 14:16:48 GMT 8
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Sept 16, 2013 14:21:30 GMT 8
How have the 15 players who showed up been respected if the no-shows get away with it? Would you have enforced a penalty if no one takes up the issue?
So, in this case, are you taking the no-show into consideration before blocking the player, or are you giving him some leeway and give him a waiver because the player was 'helpful' as a late filler?
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 16, 2013 14:24:40 GMT 8
It's up front for everyone on the Playing Rules & Principles post: And every schedule thread includes: If without the late filler, we would in any event have had uneven numbers, no loss there.
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Sept 16, 2013 14:37:19 GMT 8
How have the 15 players who showed up been respected if the no-shows get away with it? Would you have enforced a penalty if no one takes up the issue? So, in this case, are you taking the no-show into consideration before blocking the player, or are you giving him some leeway and give him a waiver because the player was 'helpful' as a late filler? This has not been answered: respecting your fellow players, and being transparent on the penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 16, 2013 14:39:36 GMT 8
It's transparent on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Foo Cheong on Sept 16, 2013 14:46:43 GMT 8
If without the late filler, we would in any event have had uneven numbers, no loss there. Using the 6 Sep (Sat) as an example, Ade signed up early in the work but had to give notice of late withdrawal. (But at least he took the trouble to notify.) But he was fined $2 even though there was no one on the wait list. We found a late replacement, Nick C, so, by your logic, there is "no loss there". In contrast, the 15 Sep (Sun) game, the late filler did not show up and did not give notice, but no penalty was announced. The replacement was found only after 30 minutes into the game, but it was still viewed as there is "no loss there." I think Ade was more responsible in his actions but was $2 worse off. I don't see the transparency and consistency.
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 16, 2013 14:51:40 GMT 8
You should read this thread from the beginning.
The penalty is to deter players from holding a place from earlier on then withdrawing less than 5 hours before the game. If a filler never held a place until later, the same principle doesn't apply.
Holding a place means someone else who might have considered playing may not have put their name down because the game was full. Or it might have been obvious earlier that we didn't have enough players and the game would have been cancelled. Either way, it is additional work for me.
The 5 hour mark is critical, because it is when we start thinking about line ups.
|
|