this is a different idea to the other vacation mod suggestion raised recently, so i thought it deserved its own thread:
perhaps the vacation system could be modified, so you can't play moves while it is on. if you were on vacaton and decided to drop into an internet cafe or whatever to play some moves, you'd have to drop the flag temporarily and restore it at the end of your session. that way, if you wanted to play moves, you'd have to take the risk of getting skulled in your timed-out games.
so, if the user is off on vacation, fine and good. but if he/she is on site and moving, then they are not on vacation. it's simple, and common-sense. they can still go their whole vacation without making a single move and not get timed out, if they wish. but if they move, they take the risk of timeouts.
from what i have seen, though, there are people here who seem to be against any changes at all, even eminently sensible ones.
Originally posted by BlackampThat's why I think the very word 'vacation' is not well chosen.
this is a different idea to the other vacation mod suggestion raised recently, so i thought it deserved its own thread:
perhaps the vacation system could be modified, so you can't play moves while it is on. if you were on vacaton and decided to drop into an internet cafe or whatever to play some moves, you'd have to drop the flag temporarily and restore ...[text shortened]... ere are people here who seem to be against any changes at all, even eminently sensible ones.
I can be on vacation, but still be home. I prioritize other things than just play chess. Like attending my near future university exam, being ill and therefore not suited to chess during a period, mourning my dead relative, or any other reason I will or will not tell anybody.
So if we change name, then the confusion will diminish.
Originally posted by FabianFnasName it "You can't time me out no matter what I do period"
That's why I think the very word 'vacation' is not well chosen.
I can be on vacation, but still be home. I prioritize other things than just play chess. Like attending my near future university exam, being ill and therefore not suited to chess during a period, mourning my dead relative, or any other reason I will or will not tell anybody.
So if we change name, then the confusion will diminish.
Originally posted by BlackampWhy not have 864 hours instead of 36 days and everytime you are on site the vacation flag goes down until you are off site
this is a different idea to the other vacation mod suggestion raised recently, so i thought it deserved its own thread:
perhaps the vacation system could be modified, so you can't play moves while it is on. if you were on vacaton and decided to drop into an internet cafe or whatever to play some moves, you'd have to drop the flag temporarily and restore ...[text shortened]... ere are people here who seem to be against any changes at all, even eminently sensible ones.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28926
Originally posted by KewpieExactly! And what is to stop me from following in his footsteps? If 2 players do it then it will be an even greater disruption. How many would it take to grind everything to a halt? Would it be better to have some rational rules to prevent this or should we wait for a demonstration?
This is all about Atri and his insane quest for unlimited gameload, it's not really about vacations at all. He's choking half the tournaments on this site.
Originally posted by BlackampVery reasonable. Can anyone offer suggestions as to why this isn't fair/wouldn't work?
this is a different idea to the other vacation mod suggestion raised recently, so i thought it deserved its own thread:
perhaps the vacation system could be modified, so you can't play moves while it is on. if you were on vacaton and decided to drop into an internet cafe or whatever to play some moves, you'd have to drop the flag temporarily and restore ...[text shortened]... ere are people here who seem to be against any changes at all, even eminently sensible ones.
Originally posted by TerrierJackTo "prevent abuse" the vacation system is for subscribers only........who obviously wouldn't dream of abusing anything! 😲
Exactly! And what is to stop me from following in his footsteps? If 2 players do it then it will be an even greater disruption. How many would it take to grind everything to a halt? Would it be better to have some rational rules to prevent this or should we wait for a demonstration?
Change the name to "extended timebank for subscribers who need a boost against non-subs" or even just "extended timebank". 😛
Originally posted by BlackampWhy have a vacation system at all?
this is a different idea to the other vacation mod suggestion raised recently, so i thought it deserved its own thread:
perhaps the vacation system could be modified, so you can't play moves while it is on. if you were on vacaton and decided to drop into an internet cafe or whatever to play some moves, you'd have to drop the flag temporarily and restore ...[text shortened]... ere are people here who seem to be against any changes at all, even eminently sensible ones.
You start a game agreeing to the time controls, whether 1/0 or 21/21. You should move within these time controls limits or risk being timed out.
Lets just do away with the vacation system.
Originally posted by KewpieDon't blame atri.
This is all about Atri and his insane quest for unlimited gameload, it's not really about vacations at all. He's choking half the tournaments on this site.
If he was moving in all his games within the agreed time limits then people would still moan that he was holding up tournaments.
We get moaners going on about people moving quickly at the start of a game and then, when in a losing position, they slow down and only move at the end of the agreed time limits. So what, they are moving within the agreed limits if you don't like it resign the game and move on or just sit back and wait for the inevitable win.
Originally posted by adramforallrec'd 😵
Why have a vacation system at all?
You start a game agreeing to the time controls, whether 1/0 or 21/21. You should move within these time controls limits or risk being timed out.
Lets just do away with the vacation system.
OK so we discuss the vacation system once more.
As people pointed out previously in a collection of threads:
* As soon as you agree to time limits both players are in their right to use them. Even if that means to anger their opponents. If people stretch games it may be that they are morally wrong, but they ae in their rights.
* Even 1/0 games can take two month or more. It is not reasonable that everybody can say 60 days in advance that he will be on site daily. All kinds of things can happen. Oh and even in 1/0 games people drag games...
* If you are a subscriber you can have as many games as you want to. That is part of the motivation to subscribe. To limit the amount of games or tournaments will cause probably more problems than the odd player trying to make a fool out of himself by joining amounts of tournaments he can't handle. However I could agree to a number of tournaments to join for each player, say 10 per month.
* The vacation system has been and will be abused. But since most people cannot even be sure to be online with less breaks than 10 days over a year or more (round in a 7/3 tournament) I think we should leave the system. But maybe we can reduce the numb er of days to maybe 18.
I am well aware of the fact that some people still think this to be a too high number, and that this will also be abused.
All in all: Chess players (and even subscribers to RHP) are not better people morally than the rest of the world. We have to live with abusers, but need not applaud them (how about removing the colours of stars to skim that target?).
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI think the OP addresses this. If what's proposed was enacted, paying members would still reap a benefit of subscription in the form of vacation time. However, if someone wanted to move, they would have to take their vacation flag down (making them vulnerable to any potential time outs) and then reinstate it when they have finished playing for that session.
The simple fact is: both players should be playing under the same rules but they are not.
Again, is there any reason this isn't fair or workable?