No more than 25% of games, i.e.:
once every 5 weeks = ok
once every 3 weeks = not ok
Field usage at Vista is tied to the school year, and Mike H who lives there has confirmed general disuse.
Verity is the spice of life. We have always jumped around from field to field, save our time at DeFremery. (I know "what we've always done" isn't the best reason, but sudden surprise at the practice is not really warranted either.) 57% of our games at Flood is fine.
well, if someone will send me a text as to where the back up field is i will come otherwise next week will be last game for the forseeable future as i am moving to san diego on the 30th of this month
So long, and thanks for all the fish. - Douglas Adams
Joe shmoe wrote:well, if someone will send me a text as to where the back up field is i will come otherwise next week will be last game for the forseeable future as i am moving to san diego on the 30th of this month
retep wrote:No more than 25% of games, i.e.:
once every 5 weeks = ok
once every 3 weeks = not ok
I'm going to take that "explanation" as a confirmation of my suspicion that you decided to play fewer live games because you don't like them. The 1/4 compromise was agreed upon after much debate and it seems like quite an abuse of power for you to decide all on your own (without as much as mentioning to any other players) that it wasn't good enough. I suggest that we move back to the agreed upon 1/4 schedule as soon as possible.
Field usage at Vista is tied to the school year, and Mike H who lives there has confirmed general disuse.
Verity is the spice of life. We have always jumped around from field to field, save our time at DeFremery. (I know "what we've always done" isn't the best reason, but sudden surprise at the practice is not really warranted either.) 57% of our games at Flood is fine.
we have always jumped around because we had no choice. given that we know flood will be usable, it's amongst the best fields we play on, and we know that there will be conflict at Vista (not from school-aged baseballers, but from the Ultimate players who we met last time we were there who told us that they play there every sunday) it seems like Flood is a much better choice.
Not more than 25% means up to but not exceeding 25%, so if may be once in 5 weeks, or once in 4 weeks, but not once in 3 weeks, or twice in 6 weeks, etc.. So, basically what Peter said... again "not more than 25%", as per your quote of the rules.
"Baseball is like church, many attend, few understand"
guys, i am in fact literate... i do know what the word maximum means- I'm just curious why live games went from being scheduled once every four weeks to once every 5 weeks.
It seems reasonable to me that if most of the players in the group want to play live as often as possible- that we should try and play live as often as possible. I know it's been two or three months since our last live game and there are several new players who have been itching to play live. Don't even get me started on the ones who have to be dragged out to a game if it isn't live...
Ken, though you've been making accusations without having all the facts, for once you are absolutely right. We haven't played a live game in two or 3 months. It isn't for lack of trying, though. Why schedule a game nobody will show up for, which then affects turnout for the following week? Considering only 9 people showed up for the last live game (clearly less than the majority of participants -- in fact, I can only think of 2 regular players who advocate playing live as often as possible: you and Curt), it makes sense to schedule more of the type of game that historically gets us consistent turnout. Remember, there are myriad leagues in the Bay Area where every game is a live game. I strongly suggest researching them.
To support your point, we had 24 last week and 18 the prior week. I think the next live game is timed perfecty.
I intended to write something to remind everybody of my superior prowess.
