28 May 07
If a player is on vacation, not only shouldn't they be able to move, but they shouldn't be able to post in the forums. It's most annoying to see my games held up because my opponent is "on holiday for 2 weeks", and then read some drivel they wrote in a forum, and I notice that they "last moved 2 minutes ago"...
The vacation system should be a self-imposed totally exclusive exile. If a person logs in while "on vacation", the vacation should automatically finish at that time.
28 May 07
Originally posted by c99uxExcellent suggestion. I couldn't agree more - they are obviously NOT on vacation if they are playing other games and posting in the forums.
The vacation system should be a self-imposed totally exclusive exile. If a person logs in while "on vacation", the vacation should automatically finish at that time.
They usually come up with some crap about only having time to nip into an internet cafe or some other bull.
02 Jun 07
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveWhy do you find the story about the internet cafe implausible? It seems perfectly credible to me.
Excellent suggestion. I couldn't agree more - they are obviously NOT on vacation if they are playing other games and posting in the forums.
They usually come up with some crap about only having time to nip into an internet cafe or some other bull.
02 Jun 07
Originally posted by c99uxWhat is it that is so hard to understand that the "Vacation" in "vacation system" refers to a vacation from the site and not an actual physical holiday.
If a player is on vacation, not only shouldn't they be able to move, but they shouldn't be able to post in the forums. It's most annoying to see my games held up because my opponent is "on holiday for 2 weeks", and then read some drivel they wrote in a forum, and I notice that they "last moved 2 minutes ago"...
The vacation system should be a self-imposed t ...[text shortened]... son logs in while "on vacation", the vacation should automatically finish at that time.
People have a complete misconception about the vacation system.
Read Russ' post about it...
"1) Players on vacation and their opponents can continue to move. It is only protection from timeout for a fixed number of days, nothing more.
2) A player must clear down games at risk from timeout before their vacation ends. Removal of the vacation flag will end any protection. The vacation page help will be updated to make this clear.
3) People can use their days as they please.
-Russ"
02 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by c99uxThe only thing wrong with this idea is that when the vacation ends, they'll be able to be timed out. Maybe they should only get 30 more minutes before it ends.
If a player is on vacation, not only shouldn't they be able to move, but they shouldn't be able to post in the forums. It's most annoying to see my games held up because my opponent is "on holiday for 2 weeks", and then read some drivel they wrote in a forum, and I notice that they "last moved 2 minutes ago"...
The vacation system should be a self-imposed t ...[text shortened]... son logs in while "on vacation", the vacation should automatically finish at that time.
03 Jun 07
Originally posted by RagnorakI cannot agree more. Good post.
What is it that is so hard to understand that the "Vacation" in "vacation system" refers to a vacation from the site and not an actual physical holiday.
People have a complete misconception about the vacation system.
Read Russ' post about it...
"1) [b]Players on vacation and their opponents can continue to move. It is only protection from timeout for ...[text shortened]... ated to make this clear.
[b]3) People can use their days as they please.
-Russ"[/b]
12 Aug 07
Originally posted by PsychoPawni bumped them because some new people entered the discussion that weren't on board when the older ones were posted. i figured that these would help everyone gain some perspective. if i'm wrong, then fine.
Why are you bumping these old threads? It's not deja vu - you're just resurrecting old complaints.
12 Aug 07
Originally posted by coquetteWnat rag said in Thread 73533 pretty much sums what I think up.
i bumped them because some new people entered the discussion that weren't on board when the older ones were posted. i figured that these would help everyone gain some perspective. if i'm wrong, then fine.
You could have posted one new thread with links and it wouldn't be this irritating to just have all these past threads be brought up when most people don't even care.
12 Aug 07
Originally posted by PsychoPawnthat's true, but the "irritation" does make the point . ... .
Wnat rag said in Thread 73533 pretty much sums what I think up.
You could have posted one new thread with links and it wouldn't be this irritating to just have all these past threads be brought up when most people don't even care.
12 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by coquetteWhat point? That a minority are irritated?
that's true, but the "irritation" does make the point . ... .
A list of threads doesn't constitute an argument. And the irritation only makes me think less of your argument, or I should say, lack thereof.
Plus it makes me less sympathetic to your cause.
12 Aug 07
Originally posted by PsychoPawni didn't make myself clear. i was referring to the degree of irritation expressed by so many. presenting the links did not convey the same degee of irritation. your irritation makes the point. that's what i meant.
What point? That a minority are irritated?
A list of threads doesn't constitute an argument. And the irritation only makes me think less of your argument, or I should say, lack thereof.
Plus it makes me less sympathetic to your cause.
as to a lack of a point, that is just too clever of you. i needn't try to respond. clearly you are much to clever for me to bother.
13 Aug 07
Originally posted by coquetteYou're right on one thing, you didn't make yourself clear.
i didn't make myself clear. i was referring to the degree of irritation expressed by so many. presenting the links did not convey the same degee of irritation. your irritation makes the point. that's what i meant.
as to a lack of a point, that is just too clever of you. i needn't try to respond. clearly you are much to clever for me to bother.
Expressed by so many? What, 5 threads over how much time?
Also, you really shouldn't be complaining about people attacking you personally when you apparently have no qualms about doing so yourself.
I didn't attack you personally at all.