Originally posted by Phlabibit
Get rid of it.
How many people here voted for the system, and now regret it? When the topic first came up a long time ago, there were two solutions proposed.
36 days a year Vacation.
Next, and I don't know why... RHP decided to put it to a vote and 36 days vacation was the clear winner.
Now with both Time Bank and Vacation ir vote. If there is no one who changed their mind, than we live with Vacation System.
I voted for the Vacation / Immunity from Time-out System and I still support it. It seems that the people who are complaining are the same people who were against it in the first place.
The vote is still open, so anyone who has voted can change their vote. A few months ago the 'yes' vote was around 1400, but that's now grown to 1538. The 'no' vote is 679 which is about the same as before. So maybe some who were against the vacation system are now in favour of it?
Phlabibit said that the proposal was for "36 days a year Vacation". That's not true. The actual wording of the question was 'Would you be happy if players were immune from timeout while on vacation for a limited period (e.g. 4 weeks per year)?'
Earlier a figure of about 3 weeks was suggested by the site admin. It would have been better if everyone had been given the opportunity to vote on the number of days allowed. I would have voted for a much lower figure than 36 days.
There definitely is confusion about what the Vacation system is for and whether it can be abused. Too many people have latched onto the word 'vacation' but have missed the point of 'time-out immunity'. The wording could be changed, but I'm not sure that would do anything to lessen the confusion. When someone joins the site, one of their first questions is often "how does the site deal with vacations?" It's much easier to point them to the 'Vacation System' than to a 'Time-out Immunity System' or 'Timebank Extender' or whatever else it is renamed, and explain that it’s really to do with vacations.
A lot of people seem to be getting upset because their opponents are moving whilst on ‘vacation’ and regard this as abusing the Vacation System. Various suggestions have been put forward to deal with this. But why should this be a problem? Most players are pleased to see their opponents make a move. If someone is using up their vacation allowance but moving anyway, then that’s great. The game will be speeded up. The only players who are disappointed to see their opponents moving are those who are hoping for a cheap time-out victory. The same kind of players who used to boast in their profiles that they would claim time-outs in any circumstances and never honoured the old vacation flags. But now that the vacation system actually prevents time-outs, they are mad as hell.
The Vacation System hasn’t been in place for very long, so I think it’s too early to make drastic changes to it. It certainly shouldn’t be scrapped. An overwhelming majority voted in favour of it and it doesn’t seem likely that too many will have changed their minds. But it will be interesting to see what others think.