Vacation Flag Rule

Originally posted by Hopster
At the risk of boring people I have a suggestion.

Why don´t we disable peoples´ ability to move at all, once they put the vacation flag up. Then you have the best of both worlds. Their games are protected and the function isn´t abused. Otherwise it is just another handy timebank and doesn´t serve it´s original function.

That doesn't follow. You want your opponent to stop stalling for time (by, as you are saying, abusing the vacation system) and, yet, you are saying "stop him from moving". Well, those are two incompatible notions.

Surely if your opponent is moving then he's not stalling for time? If he is moving you wouldn't be able to time him out anyway.

Also there are legitimate reasons why you might want to have the flag up but still move. For example, if something completely unexpected comes up whilst you have 50+ games on the go, which means maybe you don't have enough time to move in all 50 games. Why shouldn't someone be able to use a few vacation days to manage the load, whilst still progressing some of his games?

Originally posted by Hopster
At the risk of boring people I have a suggestion.

Why don´t we disable peoples´ ability to move at all, once they put the vacation flag up. Then you have the best of both worlds. Their games are protected and the function isn´t abused. Otherwise it is just another handy timebank and doesn´t serve it´s original function.

Seach the forums for "sealed moves" and you will see the responses...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Seach the forums for "sealed moves" and you will see the responses...

WHY!?

😉

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Seach the forums for "sealed moves" and you will see the responses...

Or just follow the link that I posted.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Why do you think you can tell me what I can do on my vacation?

See this thread for a discussion on a number of points regarding the vacation system.
Thread 69651

Out of interest, what do you think "it´s original function" is?

D

Not worth me posting if you are going to take that attitude. I couldn´t give a toss what you do on your vacation. But I am fairly sure you don´t use it in the hope that others time out in games you are losing.

A vacation flag is fair enough if people use it in the intention it was created for. 32 days allowance opens it up for abuse.

Originally posted by mrmist
That doesn't follow. You want your opponent to stop stalling for time (by, as you are saying, abusing the vacation system) and, yet, you are saying "stop him from moving". Well, those are two incompatible notions.

Surely if your opponent is moving then he's not stalling for time? If he is moving you wouldn't be able to time him out anyway.

Also t ...[text shortened]... o use a few vacation days to manage the load, whilst still progressing some of his games?

Not necessarily. He would have to stop moving in all his games, even the ones he is not stalling for time.

I don´t want to time oponents out. I want them to move whether I am winning or losing. It is just good manners.

I can see where someone might have an emergency or work commitment and cannot move. Then there should be a whole games suspension. I don´t agree with people putting up the vacation flag and choosing to move regularly in some games and not others. I can´t understand anyone who thinks that is not abuse of the system.

You make a fair point at the end, but a key phrase is ´a few vacation days´ not 32.

As an aside, the player I am playing as a profile which reads ´I like fast games because I get bored quickly....´

I like to play chess on this site, not silly buggers.

Originally posted by Hopster

A vacation flag is fair enough if people use it in the intention it was created for. 32 days allowance opens it up for abuse.

At what number does it not "open it up for abuse"? 2? 3? 12?

If 12 doesn't, 13 does?

Russ has mentioned that the vacation time can legally be used for any reason that any user wants to and I would think the owner of the site pretty much as a good amount of say over what the intention of the vacation time is for.

Originally posted by Hopster
Not necessarily. He would have to stop moving in all his games, even the ones he is not stalling for time.

I don´t want to time oponents out. I want them to move whether I am winning or losing. It is just good manners.

I still don't see though how preventing someone from moving whilst their flag is up helps you in any way.

Currently, someone can stall, or someone (else) could put their flag up, yet still move.

What you propose would mean that that 2nd person could not move.

The first person is going to stall anyway, regardless.

So you're not helping yourself out by stopping moves whilst the flag is up. You're doing the opposite, in fact.

Really, if you're just interested in a good game, then once you find out someone is in the habit of stalling, don't play them any more. Play one of the other thousands of members.

Of course, maybe I say this because I have not seen this "stalling" behaviour from anyone. Maybe 'cos I lose so much 😀

Originally posted by Hopster
Not worth me posting if you are going to take that attitude. I couldn´t give a toss what you do on your vacation. But I am fairly sure you don´t use it in the hope that others time out in games you are losing.

A vacation flag is fair enough if people use it in the intention it was created for. 32 days allowance opens it up for abuse.

What kind of attitude? You're telling me that I can't play chess if I'm on vacation in your following statement. "Why don´t we disable peoples´ ability to move at all, once they put the vacation flag up." To be honest, you're only doing it out of ignorance of all the aspects of the problem.

A lot of other people have come up with knee jerk reactions to solve the "problem" of vacation "abuse" which only serve to negatively affect genuine vacationers who may catch an hour at an internet cafe on a 2 week vacation. Read the thread I linked to to see a number of other very poor suggestions.

To summarise some issues with your suggestion...
1) How many sites that you pay for prevent you from visiting them for fixed periods of time.
2) How do you know that a person is on a genuine vacation/business trip?
3) How do you know a player is only stalling in the hope of a TO win, and isn't genuinely stumped?
4) What benefit is it to the membership to prevent people from making moves in their easy games? Ie: those with only 1 move, in a familiar opening, won endgame, etc?
5) As soon as a vacation flag is removed (with the current system), TOs can be claimed. If a player is prevented from moving while flying his vacation flag, then he is going to be TO'ed in a number of games, just as he is catching up.

I could go on or you could just read the linked thread.

I'll ask you again, what is "the intention it was created for?"

D

Originally posted by mrmist
Of course, maybe I say this because I have not seen this "stalling" behaviour from anyone.

To be honest, I don't think I'd even notice it.

D

Originally posted by mrmist
Really, if you're just interested in a good game, then once you find out someone is in the habit of stalling, don't play them any more. Play one of the other thousands of members.

This doesn´t help if said person participates in tournos.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Russ has mentioned that the vacation time can legally be used for any reason that any user wants to and I would think the owner of the site pretty much as a good amount of say over what the intention of the vacation time is for.

That doesn´t mean he is right. It may mean he can´t be bothered to discuss a solution to the issue. I would argue that he has to listen to his subscribers,

What is the point of having a site ideas section if members request cannot be considered.

12/13? You are being pedantic. I would suggest there is a great difference between 20 vacation days and 32. It seems an extraordinary amount of days to give people.

Originally posted by Hopster
That doesn´t mean he is right. It may mean he can´t be bothered to discuss a solution to the issue. I would argue that he has to listen to his subscribers,

What is the point of having a site ideas section if members request cannot be considered.

12/13? You are being pedantic. I would suggest there is a great difference between 20 vacation days and 32. It seems an extraordinary amount of days to give people.

No one is suggesting that a members request can't be considered. The point is you are suggesting a conclusion based on the original intent of the vacation days. I would think the owner of the site would know about that and that was what he said.

I would think Russ is the final arbiter of why he implemented a feature in his site.

You may think he's wrong philosophically, and that's your option. It doesn't change what he said or what his reasoning is.

There is a difference between 20 and 32 days- 12 🙂 Your opinion of what is extraordinary is your right too, but you suggested that a given number was opening the doors for abuse, but a different number is not opening the doors for abuse.

There would have to be a maximum number that doesn't open the doors for abuse that is one less than the minimum number that does open the doors for abuse. It's simply the logical conclusion to your own argument.

Having 20 days would still allow abuse. Having 1 day would still allow for abuse. I don't have a problem with the current number of days, but I don't see why I shouldn't challenge you to actually provide an argument backing your "opening the doors" claim.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
What kind of attitude? You're telling me that I can't play chess if I'm on vacation in your following statement.

I'll ask you again, what is "the intention it was created for?"

D

I can see your points about why people need the vacation function and that their moving ability shouldn´t be blocked.

I thought your opening line was a little confrontational considering that my suggestion wasn´t directed personally at you. But I can see it was intended as an open question.

All the points you have made answer why the facility was created. However, I am fairly certain it wasn´t created for people to drag games
in an unsporting manner, and I still feel this needs to be addressed.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
There is a difference between 20 and 32 days- 12 🙂 Your opinion of what is extraordinary is your right too, but you suggested that a given number was opening the doors for abuse, but a different number is not opening the doors for abuse.

There would have to be a maximum number that doesn't open the doors for abuse that is one less than the minimum nu ...[text shortened]... n't challenge you to actually provide an argument backing your "opening the doors" claim.

Hopefully, I wouldn´t have to wait quite so long for the games to finish.

In conclusion, I suppose I just have to lie it and lump it. Try and keep a non-buddies list and avoid playing people that slow down games in unsporting circumstances.