New Member Rule Anomaly

If new members, while provisionally rated as 1200 ,are not allowed to take part in tournaments ,why are they allowed to take part in team matches ? Are not the considerations essentially similar? It is very annoying to find oneself badly outmatched by an unknown skill level with a resulting heavy cost in rating.

I think thje reason is not because of their rating, it's to make sure they will be around l;ong enough to complete their games and not runi the tournament.  That's why you have to have a time out ratio below a certian level and also have to have won a certain number of games as well.  I suppose the same points could be made in relation to Team Matches, if the new member times out or whatever it could ruin the match, maybe the same rule should apply?

Many thanks Philip- exactly kind of thing I need  to know.One organiser said they  had no jurisdiction on this matter and I made a bit of a fool of myself in wrongly trying to"force the hands"of 2 others and quite rightly was chucked out of a group ! Hope to make amends some time by better reasoning .      

                It is interesting to realise that the same new member could be admitted to other competitions  at the same time as he is barred from tourneys and that surely can not be a good ruling, possibly a ruling oversight that the organisers also overlook on occasion.

One point about team matches versus tournaments: you must already have joined a group in order to participate in a team match; and that indicates a certain level of commitment.

Of course, it's not unknown for someone - not necessarily a new member - to join a group, sign up for team matches, and then suddenly quit the group and resign the team matches.

Arguably there should be some kind of Team-Matches-Quit counter (analagous to Timeout ratio) applicable as a filter on team matches.

This particular issue should not be a problem to put right, surely, if someone would look at it .Who could be asked to take notice, if they are not aready on the case through the grapevine as sometimes happens?                                    I  believe the threads are already in place to do the stitching  without any great difficulty.                                                                                                    In the meantime group and team organisers could perhaps note a suggestion from a very experienced and skillful contributor who has pointed out that it is within their remit to set playing ranges  for example up to 1199 and from 1201 thus avoiding  the troublesome newbie 1200 provisionals. Are there any other relevant points that need to be considered?

Another question for someone  somewhere out there....what is the purpose  of this Forum Topic Title and who set it up ?

Are you asking about this actual topic here new-member-rule-anomaly - that has your name on it as originator? Or are you referring to topic titles in general?

Regret ambiguity ...It is my post not an inherited one. Topic comes under Forum  Category  at top right corner of page, entitled "Site Feedback and Suggestions "which is  It is a relatively new addition  appearing to have been deemed necessary by the editing  staff,so therefore the questions-how is it intended that suggestions posted in it be dealt with eventually and who is responsible for dealing with them please ?  It is my hope that these suggested improvements have been sufficiently sorted to be ready for possible adoption in whole or in part into the regulations which currently inhibit members from taking part in competitions.

This new Site Feedback and Suggestions category was introduced by Erik 3 months ago - to replace the series of Wishlist threads. It is still just a wishlist for Erik to pick and choose which suggestions - if any - he will decide to implement. It's up to members to use appropriate topic titles to keep associated themes together and avoid duplication.

The Help and Support forum category is the one to use for discussing actual bugs and things playing up.

Many thanks artfizz picture now in better focus, same as before only different as the  saying goes;in right place then. Been getting some good support and agreement-- even wallyjack who rightly enough threw me out of his group for my badly judged tactics agreed he could see I had a point  as did another organiser and several well respected contributors.Well it is a" no-brainer "really is it not.Organisers of competitions need to realise people don't expect a bogus prospectus  in terms of fairness  of conditions.I  resigned from two other groups which were doing the same thing ,and well, essentially putting kudos for group size before ,well again, I don't want to over- egg it ! Besides , I'm keeping something in my favour in reserve. Meantime organisers may, as they do , continue to blame the rules for" tying their hands "