Xcout

This isn't a club ,  you don't pay to be a member and you have no say on how it's run. MC offered opinions as a courtesy.  It's his  and ONLY his decision .The day YOU get a say in how things are  run is the day my 'punterslounge ' mug gets smashed against the wall ( actually I must try harder to get more pens , only got one left I think   hmmm) 
You seem to think this is a social site , we are not ' mates' friends or colleagues,  doubt if anyone cares if you don't have time to make selections because your out shopping,  cooking lamb,beef chicken or fillet steak , helping your daughter move ( probably as far away from your spouting as possible) or writing to the council,  save all that for Facebook or any other nonsense media site.
BH ( God rest his soul) had you figured out pretty quick , ask for help, let others do the work for you then disregard anyway . 
The way you answer people is often rude, condescending and arrogant,  you are beyond contempt and will be treated as such in future so beware 
 
 
 

I am also entertained by this, so much I forgot to NAP... hahahaha ?
Being serious, I commend Mclarke  for being open to objections, yet it became what was needed, the reasoning for the   amendments and also an open exchange of ideas. Such discourse with open minded people is the basis of advancements.

I am also entertained by this, so much I forgot to NAP... hahahaha ?
Being serious, I commend Mclarke  for being open to objections, yet it became what was needed, the reasoning for the   amendments and also an open exchange of ideas. Such discourse with open minded people is the basis of advancements.

I am also entertained by this, so much I forgot to NAP... hahahaha ?
Being serious, I commend Mclarke  for being open to objections, yet it became what was needed, the reasoning for the   amendments and also an open exchange of ideas. Such discourse with open minded people is the basis of advancements.

Let’s make it hyper realistic, if someone has a couple of winners we take BOG off them and if they persist in doing well we half their stakes. 
Out of interest, is BOG often a factor, i.e. the SP is bigger than the early price taken? I assume most winners will go off shorter than the price taken by the resident shrewdies.

I'm mildly entertained by it all. It's also allowed me to look at some of the other rules as well.

FFS roll on 1st of september before every rule gets changed and a dozen more added on. Unbeleivable Jeff (i before e eejit). If i was @MCLARKE i would be hanging from a tree now with my suicide note saying some Twat who ridiculously calls himself zilzalian asked for a consideration coz he got pissed off one day and now he is being surrounded by the keyboard warrior brigade, Well you get what you ask for in this life Zil its self inflicted so serves you right ya daft prick. The only saviour to this situation would be to call for Edward Woodward The Equaliser to come sort it out but alas he wanted a vote first. ????

It's an interesting debate.
There are 2 extremes.
One extreme is the novice punter who has no restrictions and therefore will be able to take early prices with BOG.
The other extreme is the skilled punter who can't get a bet on at all even at SP. This punter will be forced to use the exchanges.
I suspect that most of us are somewhere in between. For instance I can bet with BET365 and BET VICTOR with no restictions at all but I am restricted with all the other commonly recognised bookmakers.
My profit margin is about 5%, without BOG this would be more or less wiped out.
I think the current rules are fine, we are partly attempting to attract new people to the forum and these will be able to access the prices and offers. It would make sense to only include those bookmakers who offer BOG the night before.

Neither, actually the quote was said by Ronald Regan referring to a Russian Proverb.
 

Me too, I've done it before but ages ago and on a different laptop. Having just googled it though, it's easy enough to find out or remind oneself how to do it. As we have to be online to post our entries in the first place I'd say it stops short of being discriminatory and it's just a matter of whether or not the individual can be bothered with the faff. I couldn't but I'm very much a pin-sticking "just for the fun of it" participant in the naps comp and am fine with domestic fare.
If anyone ever wanted to post a nap that fell into this category I'd suggest asking on here stating what type of device you're using and I'm sure someone will be happy to help.
Also, as the person who has introduced the rule, @MCLARKE has offered everyone who wants it one half hour IT sessions where he will come round to your house and show you how to do it. 

Basically a mixture of banter and the same discussion points being chased round in ever decreasing circles. Not too late, I'm sure if anyone can make a genuinely persuasive argument against any of the changes then it would be taken on board. 
Or the clamour for a ballot could gather momentum until @MCLARKE has no choice other than to explain yet again that there won't be one!

I like French and USA racing but would accept uk and Irish only if it makes things easy ⚒?

Crikey only just noticed this thread , here's me thinking i'd joined a fun competition   ?

There are a lot of varied opinions being expressed in this thread but you seem to have mastered the knack of being the only person to put forward ones that elicit no agreement whatsoever.
Do let us know once you've made your mind up as we're all on tenterhooks. "If that's your attitude!" That's a remarkably condescending tone to adopt towards the person who takes all the time and effort to run the naps competitions and who had the courtesy to invite views from anyone who wished to express them. Not so much "one man, one vote" as "one man banging on tediously about having a vote". Good job it's not the Derby or you'd be off to Epsom to chuck yourself in front of the Queen's horse.
Sometimes it can be a noble thing to argue against everyone else in the room (when it has the vaguest purpose), sometimes it just answers the "who's the idiot in the room" question.

I think we should have a vote on whether we vote on rule changes ...
?
To debate them is for the most part healthy. But then i think its the admin decision as ultimately they have to enforce these rules.
How would a vote work anyway? 1 member 1 vote although on paper would seem reasonable but takes no account of contribution? How can someone like me who pretty much does the competitions only - all be it i always back my selections as they arent just to win the competitions,  get the same voting power as say @The Equaliser or @Zilzalian and many others who post daily with info / tips to help all members

Getting a discussion on the subject is a courtesy, albeit a sensible one (gauge reaction, sense check the proposal and iron out any ambiguities). Expecting a vote is unrealistic.
Unless, of course, this is the start of your bid to gain ownership of the site and/or take over the running of the competition.
if you feel strongly enough about the subject you could always try and arrange a strike (they’re all the rage at the moment) but I suspect you’d end up as “The Naps Comp one”.
This isn’t a democracy, think of @MCLARKEas a reasonably benign dictator who watches over all our antics with a wry smile on his face.

Actually i think not, members do/did not set the rules admin did so it should be an admin decision, a decision based on the feedback they have received, any other way or what you are suggesting will just draw out the process unnecessarily. Want an example? Just go through all the feedback and the various reactions to it. some people commented on comments without knowing or bothering to read the original problem and some ended up arguing about the various comments rather than the problem and from what i have seen only a small amount of members maybe 8 at most gave feedback anyway, Most others didnt really care or bother. so that begs the question how many will vote anyway? those 8 or a few more? it certainly wouldn't be anywhere near the hundred plus that usually participate in the comp. the 2 rule changes proposed have had decent enough feedback i see no reason to Stop Mike making a decision on these issues when he sees fit. The 3rd (last) rule change was Mikes suggestion because he identified a rule where the previous version of the rule was open to abuses and therefore wasn't fair on other members, you vindicated his concern by admitting to taking advantage of said rule that as i see it covered people submitting more than one nap in error which i might add i have nearly done myself on occasion forgetting i had already submitted my nap.

It's becoming like the Tory leadership contest !
1/14 that the rules will be amended, 14/1 against

We could have a vote on who gets to have a vote! 
Or, to keep it simple, just set a minimum post count threshold for eligibility, I'd say, off the top of my head, 7.4k posts would be a reasonable minimum>

A further change to the rules.
1 bet per day, Max. If a member posts twice the latest one will count towards the competition. I propose that this is changed to
If a member posts twice then the first post will count towards the competition unless it is a non runner
Under the old rule a horse could be selected and if it's price difted then it could be replaced with another selection. This does not seem fair.

OMG, no flat racing in UK or Ireland, i'm going to have to look overseas....now, what are those rules again.... ?

No problem. I, and i think everybody on here, feels your frustration Zilzalian and we are trying to come to an agreement/possible rule change so that it does not happen again. I don't know about MClarke but i think there have been some good points made, discussed and solved already today. I've already done more bloody typing today than i've done in my whole life, it's like work and i haven't done that for years either! Going to bed now TBC. 

Going to assume that you were typing before explanation message came up. You seem to be taking this personally and quoting things that have not been said. This is about whether Punters Lounge members are in agreement that rules should be changed or not. You have brought something to the table and stated your case and most points are valid. MClarke could have just said no, he could have just said yes ok i'm changing that rule and i and many others and you would have just accepted it. But that didn't happen, he said it would be discussed and i think that's what is kind of happening now. I also said i would make a case for people who maybe didn't want the rules changed, but couldn't or were to shy to speak up and write about it and i don't remember saying which way i'd vote.

The reserve the right to put up daft early prices without flagging them for shrewdies to exploit willy nilly in naps competitions! 

My bad, clearly the rules state:
SP Bets only for races in USA, Hong Kong and Australia.
Yet it also mentions:
Early prices can be taken but must be available at the time of the post in the competition thread, these will be checked against   Odds-checker and if the price was not available then SP will be used.