Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Didn’t they also get a bit of
Didn’t they also get a bit of a bashing for insisting Evans staff keep working while refusing to take any measures to change practices to provide a safe working environment?
Presumably they judged that it would be more financially advantageous to furlough everyone than to make the changes necessary to run the shops in a responsible way.
Except that, as I said, they
Except that, as I said, they don’t seem to have been any more incompetent than many other countries that you’d apparently be happy to buy from (and why would incompetence at dealing with epidemics be a reason to boycott their goods anyway?). And by your own reckoning, dishonesty is nothing new for them. So where is the reason to be any more diligent now than before?
Well not purchasing from
Well not purchasing from China because you don’t want to support a secretive, oppressive, uncooperative regime that exercises tight control over information is a fair enough position, but that isn’t what you originally said. You said
the virus originated in unhygienic cruel food markets in China, and was not properly controlledwhich was unrelated to any of that.
If the nature of the regime is your main concern, then bringing the virus into it is a bit weird. As you say, they have a ‘track record’ that goes back decades – long before this virus emerged, so I’m not sure why you’d be avoiding purchases from there now any more than you would have been six months ago.
Presumably you’ll also be
Presumably you’ll also be avoiding purchases from the UK, US, Italy, Spain, France, etc., etc., etc. until they apologise for failing to control the spread of a highly contagious virus as well? I think your choices are going to be rather limited.
Not sure how SARS-CoV-2 is
Not sure how SARS-CoV-2 is relevant, though. If you’re worried about catching it off your inner tubes, (a) that’s highly unlikely, and (b) wherever you get them from is likely to have an outbreak (unless you can find a supplier in Kiribati or somewhere like that).
I think it probably depends
I think it probably depends on how much ‘not-riding’ you’re doing in them – how often you need to stop and put a foot down; how much you’re walking around in them off the bike.
My experience of commuting in them – riding most days; typically putting a foot down maybe 6-7 times each way; walking across the carpark between bike shed and office – is that the sole area will be pretty tatty after one winter, and after two they’ll need replacing.
Getting the ones with rubberised or kevlar reinforcement doesn’t really seem to help much, as the protection never extends to the seam area, which is the most vulnerable to damage.
The mass obviously increases.
The mass obviously increases. Because cake stops.
[Though not in the current circumstances.]
I know what you mean, but arguably, if you are assisted on the climbs, you will be fresher on the flat, so logging the whole ride as an ebike would be a fairer option.Arguably, if you started your ride just before the segment, you’ll be a lot fresher than someone who did 100 miles before arriving there, so the whole ‘leaderboard’ thing is a bit meaningless anyway.
That ‘sports cyclist’ really
That ‘sports cyclist’ really needs to do their gilet up or take it off.
For punishment to be
For punishment to be effective it needs to be meaningfully impactful and meaningfully likely.
The problem with punishment for motoring offences is that they generally fall short on both criteria – enforcement is poor, and even when they are enforced, the impact on the offender is often not meaningful. In that situation, it makes sense to call for both tougher penalties and better enforcement.
In the case of these thieves, meaningfully impactful punishments short of using physical violence are available. Escalating the impact of the punishment isn’t going to do much reduce the behaviour. Increasing the likelihood of punishment (through better enforcement) is much more likely to be effective.
Quote:
”His focus was on the primary hazard – the cyclist”Hmm – I’d say the primary hazard was the car, or rather, the guy driving it.
On my recent rides it’s been
On my recent rides it’s been less farmers causing issues and more those working on the gazillions of new housing developments springing up. I have some sympathy for the former, as it’s not always going to be feasible to clean down tractors every time they leave a field, but it ought to be a default part of any planning application that the developer make provision for cleaning down any vehicles before they leave the site, with hefty fines for failing to do so.
TERatcliffe26 wrote:Just to
Just to your middle bit, having someone extra to dave doing that would cost money, and im sure a yearly salary would be more than just the tenner we pay.Well that’s the rub, isn’t it? If people are going to pay for something, they’re going to expect a certain level of support for it. If the sums don’t add up to provide that, then there’s a hole in the business plan. In which case, those running the game have various options:
– find some extra investment/income from somewhere – this may not be available
– change the price point to increase the income to the point where it can be funded – it may just not be possible to generate sufficient income
– change the funding model so that people’s expectations are lowered – eg fund it through advertising or ask for donations rather than making a charge
– accept the risk, and when something like this inevitably goes wrong, just wear the criticism and lost subscriptionsEither way though, to say that it’s just one of those things, that it couldn’t have been anticipated, and so people shouldn’t complain, is misleading.
Gkam84 wrote:It wasn’t
It wasn’t unusable, it was slowIt was so slow as to be unusable, at least for some users.
with over 1600 teams in, there were less then 50 teams that I can see who were affected.As I said, this assumes that anyone who did get a team in was not affected, which is just wrong.
It just happens that Dave had something one when the server had an issue, which is not predictable and with Dave being the only one who does the server side of things, we were helpless to do anything to sort it.Not predictable, but plannable for. It seems the main issue that needs addressing is having only one person who does the server side of things, and apparently with authority to make decisions about how to run the game, and no-one to cover when he’s away.
I’m actually quite disappointed in this outcome… this time I think it has been handled badly… a solution that doesn’t solve the problem a lot of players experienced.Hard to see what could have been done though, given that there wasn’t anyone who could take a decision to neutralise in the initial short window of opportunity – beyond the apology that’s been given, what would you have like to have seen happen that wouldn’t have been unfair to somebody?
In the grand scheme of things it doesn’t really matter, and there ain’t no fixing it now.
Gkam84 wrote:It is countable,
It is countable, Less than 2% of teamsWhat is that number though? The number of players who didn’t get teams registered at all? If so, then it will considerably underestimate the problem. It won’t include people like me who struggled through the problems to get some kind of team in, but weren’t able to finesse it into the team we would have wanted. Or like those above who put a preliminary team in early and then came back to find they couldn’t make changes.
This is reminiscent of last year’s ‘non-neutralised’ snow stage. Like that, it needed a decision taken early, and once it was left too long there really was no fair way to resolve it without penalising somebody. The only fair thing that could be done now would be to neutralise stages 1 and 2 and have unlimited transfers ahead of stage 3, and that would be getting really farcical.
Sure, there’s no way that server problems could have been anticipated, but what could have been anticipated was the start of one of the biggest competitions of the season, and that it would be a good idea to make sure that someone who could sort things out should be around in case some – any – problems occurred. Of people’s money is going to be taken for the game, then there really should be some professionalism in the level of support available.
Personally, I don’t have much right to complain, as I don’t pay for premium, so I haven’t really lost anything except for a bit of time and frustration that was my own choice. However, I might well have upgraded for next season, but after an incident like this that now seems unlikely, and I can certainly understand why those who have paid for the game would feel aggrieved.